/sci/ - Science & Math

inb4 magnets

>>2686580
old shitty meme is old and shitty

>>2686572
Universe heat death. Energy will be evenly distributed across all space. Will matter be evenly distributed across all space? If so, what process "evaporates" the atoms of a dead brown / black dwarf, aka what the Sun will become?

water = lots of water mollecules in empty space
cherenkov radiation = particle goes faster than the speed of light in water

space = lots of stars and rocks in empty space
=> it is possible to go faster than the speed of light in "space" ?

why do birds glide mostly and bats flap mostly?

Can you explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? I don't think I get it.

>Hey guys we're going to CERN march 30 to the second of april, wanna join us?
FUCK YEAH! Where do I have to sign?
... one week passes
>Oh by the way, we'll need you here at the university at that exact time. Please cancel all appointments. The next CERN excursion will be in 2012 by the way.

Pic related.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAH

do electrons have constant mass?

how come you never answer any questions?

>>2686587
No. Nothing goes faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, aka c, but some things can go faster than the speed of light in a material.

By nothing, I mean that information cannot be transmitted faster than c.

<span class="math">f(x)=e^{sin(2x) \cdot ln(tan(x))}
f'(x)=e^{sin(2x) \cdot ln(tan(x))} \cdot (2cos(2x) \cdot ln(tan(x))+sin(2x) \cdot \frac{1}{tan(x)} \cdot sec^2(x)=
tan(x)^{sin(2x)}(2cos(2x)ln(tan(x)) + sec(x))
f'(\frac{\pi}{4}= \sqrt{2} [\math][/spoiler]

In stimulated emission, how does the atom emit electromagnetic radiation with the same phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel as the photons it is exposed to?

>>2686608
yea but a material is mostly empty space, do you get my analogy with water? (space itself is not empty since we are there and there's stars and rocks and stuff, so if you look at the big picture you can consider space as a material)

>>2686588
bone density, anatomy and weight in general

>>2686592
WTF? sorry dude. Maybe 2012 isn't so bad though.

The best time to come and see the LHC is when it is off (I mean totally shutdown). That way we can give tours of the tunnel. They are planning a shudown in 2012 I believe.

If you had just come now, you really cant see in the tunnels. All you will get to see is the control rooms (not as exciting).

OP you are the true joker. I tip my hat to you.

>>2686572

Why does electromagnetic radiation have a frequency? Is it a longitudinal or a transversal wave? Or is frequency a property of each individual photon?

>>2686612
You're trying to imply something which is obviously mistaken based upon the abundance of evidence.

Also, space isn't mostly empty space. You have that virtual pair production. We know that it "exists", insofaras it has produced predictions which have been verified accurate to more decimal places of precision than any prediction in the history of human science.

we take 2 particles, fire them at each other at a high velocity (near speed of light) with a specific amount of energy. Once they collided and are flying away from each other at a speed bigger than the speed of light relative to each other, why can we measure one particles velocity and the other particles position and then calculate the position and velocity of the particles disproving the uncertainty principle?

>>2686586
By energy they mean matter as well. Particle physics dictates that shit always tries to reach lower mass. The universe constantly gets less massive.

All mass should decay everntually (even the proton). This is still an open area of debate though, as the decay time of some particles is not yet known (like the proton).

>>2686639
That makes sense. They hypothesize that the principal particles have some sort of half life where they will decay into non-matter. Gotcha.

I've been researching QED all day thus far and gotten no answer to this question.
Why are there so many different versions of the Dirac equation?

>>2686587
"some things" can go faster then light.
Information cannot travel faster then light.

>>2686608
Correct

>>2686657
>principle
fixed

>>2686666
lol no.
You dont know shit, gtfo of my /sci/ fag.

>>2686658
What do you mean?
Provide the equations.

There are tons of "equations" that you could call the "dirac equation". The dirac equation (like all equations in science), represnt an "idea". Any equation that represnts that idea is intrinsically identical (and can be called the dirac equation).

>>2686666
What are these 'some things' that can exceed the speed of light?

1) Why can't anything go faster than the speed of light?

2) What properties does light have that makes it relative to the observer?

>>2686693
>1) Why can't anything go faster than the speed of light?
By nothing, you mean something that can carry information.

Also, why? We don't now. It is, because that's what the evidence says.

if the faster something goes the more energy they have, why light, which is the fastest, doesnt explode everything??????????????????????????????????????

>>2686689
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiracEquation.html
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/DiracEquation.html
For e.g
Why is it necassary?

>>2686690
Basic examples of things which can go faster than the speed of light include: shadows, beams of light.

If you project a shadow of your finger using a nearby lamp onto a far away wall and then wag your finger, the shadow will move much faster than your finger. If your finger moves parallel to the wall, the speed will be multiplied by a factor D/d where d is the distance from the lamp to your finger and D is the distance from the lamp to the wall. It can actually be much faster than this if the wall is at some oblique angle. If the wall is very far away the movement of the shadow will be delayed because of the time it takes light to get there but its speed is still amplified by the same ratio. The speed of a shadow is therefore not restricted to be less than the speed of light.

Point a laser at the moon, and move the spot.
"The spot" of a laser which is pointed at the surface of the moon is not restricted to move less the the speed of light. Likewise "The beam of light" from a pulsar can sweep across a dust cloud can also move faster then the speed of light.

Is this real? Is the claim possible? What was the actual news story about?

>>2686719
its not faster, its the same as light.

>>2686699
I thought it was because a photon had no mass, and since something with mass would require more energy than something without mass then logically the massless object would be capable of the highest possible speeds.

How was the speed of light determined and is my evaluation a load of crap?

at 10^-43 seconds, was there just photons in bosonic form?

>>2686738
There is no such thing as massless particles.

>>2686748
Well then, I thought photons had less mass etc. etc.

Would it be possible to use rain to create electricity?

E.g. by taking a huge net and setting it up in a way that would gather electricity from the vibrations.

>>2686748
Photons beg to differ.

Oh, and I like your shadow example. It's a shame you cannot transmit information with it. (We need a shadowphone!)

>>2686748
Uhh, well, the photon has zero (rest) mass, and it has particle like properties, unlike a photon which has nonzero (rest) mass, and also has particle like properties.

>>2686612

Water is still millions of times more dense than space

>>2686586

Proton decay, has not been observed (obviously)

>>2686598

Yep.

>>2686588

Birds weigh less because of hollow bones, have option to glide. Bats must work much harder to keep their fat bones aloft.

>>2686611

Sum of forces entering and leaving = 0

>>2686590

I can't; go fuck yourself.

>>2686732
Nope. Sorry bro.

Think about it a little more and it should make sense to you. "The shadow" and "the beam" are not physical objects, they arent even quanatum mechincal objects. They are an "effect" that arises, they are a "statistical behavior".

While the indiviauls photon cannot travel faster then c, "the spot or the shadow" can. As they are travsverse to the photons flight path. Sweeping the spot of shadow doenst result in any single photon going faster then c. You can do the calculation in euclidean (Netwon), minokowsi (Special relativity) or even schwarzschild space (general relativity), and you can get speeds faster the light.

What's the physics equivalent of PubMed? I'm starting a course in health physics and I'd like a nice place to search for citations.

How can water be a liquid when it's made out of oxygen and hydrogen which obviously are gases until only a few Kelvin?

>>2686572

I am about to undertake a traineeship in electrical engineering. I did not do any physics in high school. I was told to expect the use of maths and physics.

I was wondering, what do you think they meant by this? What basic concepts are involved when physics and electrical engineering are involved?

It may be a "retarded question" but it's worth a shot.

>>2686764
why are you on /sci/ ?
Should you doing research or smth?
Lets collide or hardons.

>>2686760
Rest mass. For a photon. Cool.
Anything else?

>>2686794
Mistype, meant electron. Let me fix that:
>Uhh, well, the photon has zero (rest) mass, and it has particle like properties, unlike an *electron* which has nonzero (rest) mass, and also has particle like properties.

>>2686713
Those pages both give the exact same equations. They just switch to tensor form, so the equation becomes smaller. Switching to tensor form usually does that.

Also it is easier to manipluate shit in tensor form. The tensor form can be made so that you have not yet specifiecd a cooridinate system yet. Hence tensor form is what we use as the general case. It applies to any coordinate system.

The dirac equation incoperates general reltivity into quantum mech for spin 1/2 particles. It most basic use is for electrons and positrons.

>>2686802
A photon doesn't have zero rest mass, because there is no rest anything for a photon. The concept doesn't make any sense.
(The concept of rest mass doesn't make any sense for the electron either, but that's another story.)

>>2686813
It does in terms of the "famous" equation of relativity, E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

Photons have momentum, aka nonzero p, but they have zero mass, aka m = 0.

>>2686821
Nice try switching from rest mass to mass without letting anyone notice.

>>2686813
Why would you say the concept of rest mass doesnt make sense for an electron? Becuase it is a lepton? I am curious in your reasoing here.

>>2686821
Then how gravity pulls light if light has no mass?

>>2686813
>The concept of rest mass doesn't make any sense for the electron either
could you elaborate. isnt it simply the mas at 0K of the electron?

>>2686831
Because mass bends spacetime. Light always travels in straight lines. It's just that spacetime is not Euclidean.

>>2686827
"Relativistic" mass is so 2 decades ago man.

>>2686829
Well, it's mass, not rest mass. That's like speaking of rest spin and rest charge.

>>2686829
inb4 heisenberg, zero-point-energy etc.

>>2686831
Gravity interacts with mometum (not just mass). It is basic general relativity.

Explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instanton
in Layman's terms
Thanks

>>2686844
ok, is time travel possible?
Future and past.

>>2686861
Future yes. Past no.

>>2686850

"An instanton is a classical solution to equations of motion with a finite, non-zero action, either in quantum mechanics or in quantum field theory."

That seems like a pretty simple explation to me. What part is confusing you?

>>2686598

Everything has invariant mass.

>>2686624

> a speed bigger than the speed of light relative to each other

I freaking love that you made that addition. Everyone always seems to forget speed is relative. That´s an interesting question, unfortunately, it is not possible to calculate speed and velocity of the other particle, as the situation won´t be symmetrical. Particles "choose" a more or less random path around the path one would classically expect, that´s why you can´t predict the state of a partcle by observing another.

>>2686687

He was correct.

>>2686748

Light is massless.

>>2686764

Not true. The light has to reach the spot on the moon it is supposed to, which will take time. You seem to think the spot instantly changes its position when you moved the laser pointer, which is not the case. Same goes for the shadow.

>>2686813

Exactly. I still hear this relativistic mass shit even from some professors. Everytime i hear it, i rage a bit inside.

>>2686831

Gravity does not "pull", it curves spacetime and creates curved paths, which the light follows.


Nice thread so far.

>>2686868
Seems that Einstein takes a pic for every crappy thing he does.
What a fucktard.

>>2686875

> implying Einstein took that pic.

>>2686871
>Gravity does not "pull", it curves spacetime and creates curved paths, which the light follows.

How does it bends spacetime?
Gravity pulls mass not space.

Also, time obviously doesnt exist, its like the shadow of light.
Its an effect of everything else.
At least thats what feynman said.

>>2686880
>implying he didn't begged every other nerd drooling tard to take photos every 5 second.

captrax: efscr Poincare

>>2686875
That picture made me smile. Even someone as smart as Einstein can take the time out and enjoy the small things that He blessed us with.

>>2686892
Einstein believed in God you twat. Even a genius has flaws.

"God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein

As the universe is expanding, would it be possible that there is matter at the leading edge of which light has still to reach us?
If so, could this matter be exerting enough gravitational force to attract the galaxies away from each other thus giving the illusion of dark energy?

>>2686883

Gravity pulls mass not space. You have an outdated or wrong picture of what gravity is.
Let me put it in Wheeler´s words: "Matter tells space-time how to curve and space-time tells matter how to move."
I guess you know the famous image of the ball on a rubber cloth, that curves the otherwise straight cloth.
Regarding curved space-time, everything reacts to it, no matter if the object in question has a mass or not.

> Also, time obviously doesnt exist, its like the shadow of light.
Its an effect of everything else.
At least thats what feynman said.

I feel like i´m getting trolled here. Are you serious?

>>2686871 Not true.
Not true.
The laser pointer point moves faster than the speed of light, but this cannot be used to transmit information, since for that Alice would have to send "please move my information" to Earth first.
However, if Alice and Bob had synchronized clocks and would measure the time difference between "laser starts at Alice" and "laser stops at Bob", the resulting speed would indeed be FTL.

>>2686889

> implying these pics haven´t been taken by fanboys at princeton.

>>2686895

He did not believe in the god you think he did, ever heard of the "Einsteinian god"? Pretty interesting.

>>2686861
Future yes! Past yes!
But the past is (as of yet) not practicle in anysense.

In special realitivity you can try and construct a reference frame, such that the past becomes the future and visa verse. (everything is about reference frame). You end up failing becuase of the relationship between an object position and its momemtum, and the speed of light being constant.

However, if I incoperate quantum mehcincs into the mix, i no longer have this realtionship. I have an uncertainity between shit. I will get reference frames where the past and future switch. There is no loger a prefered direction of time on the quantum scale.

In order for any of that shit to make sense, then every partciel must have a "equivalent particle" in the time reversed frame.

And HENCE WE HAVE ANIT-PARTICLES!

>>2686899
>Implying they had cameras back then

>>2686896

Yes, that is the case. We cannot see the whole universe which is due to the increasing expansion rate (increasing with distance, that is). After the radius up to which we can observe it, there exist other galaxies etc. that "expand away from us" with a speed faster than light from us. This forbids any information about them getting to us, which is why everything farther away than that radius is dark.
Not sure about the last question, but i guess you would have to have so massive ammounts of matter that we would have noticed this by other means.

>>2686898
By the way,
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/531/1/22/
Cool paper about how going faster than light will fuck us up in an expanding universe.

>>2686690

phase velocity can exceed the speed of light

l2physics

>>2686903

>>2686898

Fly to the moon. I´ll point a laser at you. Bring your sister and place her somewhere else far away from you on the moon. When you see my laser, do something. When you finished that something, i will move the laser to your sister so she knows you have finished your work.

Information has been transmitted.

Think of the situation as of a garden hose. Maybe that makes it a bit clearer.

>>2686903

> There is no loger a prefered direction of time on the quantum scale.

I have thought about this as well, but what about entropy? It still would point to a direction in time, right?

>>2686903
you fucked up grammar and logic there.
But you practically saying that past time travel is not possible, at least the way we want to.

Anti farticles?

>>2686903
Mind FUUUUUUUUU

>>2686919 When you finished that something
... light has to travel to your telescope on Earth so you know I finished doing something, and then you can point your fancy laser to my sister. Not FTL.

>>2686919
but not faster than the speed of light.

>>2686932

Ok. Then let´s say You start your experiment or whatever as soon as you see my laser. I know you´ll need exactly 5 minutes do carry it out. I´ll point my laser at your sister afterwards.

What now?

What would happen if you could neutralize the negative charge of electrons in an object? Would it disintegrate? Is it the negative charge that causes the electrons to orbit the nucleus? Is it the orbit of the electron that binds atoms together?

>>2686938
Let's say I know my flight leaves tomorrow at 9:30 in the morning.

HOLY SHIT, TRANSFER OF INFORMATION FROM THE FUCKING FUTURE!

>>2686938
then you move the laser pointer, and after a brief delay, the dot of the laser on the moon moves to the sister. The dot "moves" FTL, but information has not been sent FTL

>>2686938
Then you transmit the information "start please" to me, and five minutes later you're telling Bob that I have finished. No information transmitted from Alice to Bob at all.
Stop trying.

>>2686925
It is not currently thought possible (in the way you want).

>>2686948

But she instantly knows that the experiment ended. She didn´t know this before.

i have the solution to this problem i think, i justed wanted to see what you would say.

Can you guys who say shadows and light points move faster than light provide a calculation that has a speed greater than c as its solution?

>>2686868
Non zero action
my A level physics teacher read it and didn't get it

>>2686954
2 problems there
1. She doesn't know, because you don't know, you are just guessing.
2. Not instantly at all.

Since light moves very quickly, lets use something slower as an example.
Lets say I have a water gun. It shoots a beam of water.
I point it right at you and fire. After a delay the water starts hitting you. This delay is because of the time taken for the water to reach you.

Then I move the gun to the left. Water continues to hit you for a short period of time, because water has already left the gun. Then after a delay the water is now being shot where I am now aiming.

The water still takes time to reach the new target, and the water cannot reach that target faster than the speed of water allows. Regardless of how fast the area the water hits changes, the water cannot reach the other area faster than the speed of water.

Now apply this to your laser. No information is being transmitted faster than the speed of light.

>>2686907
Thanks.

Would it not be logical to assume that the bulk of the matter from the big bang would be on the leading edge?
This would mean the observable universe is really only the matter which has been diluted and left behind in the wake of the leading edge but is still being attracted to the leading edge, could this explain ever faster expansion?
I suspect not as in every popular science book I've read concerning physics (Hawking, Gribbon, Dawkins etc) I've yet to see this idea come up, I would like to know how this seemingly logical idea has been discounted.

>>2686961
>Prove the obvious
Point laser at the left side of the moon. Time until your laser reaches that spot is d/c, with d being the distance Earth-Moon.
Point laser at the right side of the moon. Time until your laser reaches that spot is d/c, with d being the distance Earth-Moon.
The distance travelled on the moon is 2*3476 km, so if you turn your laser pointer in less than 0.023 seconds the dot is travelling FTL.

>>2686966

Not instant, but FTL. She knows because i know 5 minutes have passed and moved my laser.


Well, i was actually trying to convince the others that exactly what you said in your post happens. I just couldn´t get it in written form as you did. Well done. Thank you.

>>2686980

In the photon image, the spot would have just disappeared and appeared elsewhere, right?

Pls someone kill the fags that are talking about lasers moons and sisters.
They are so fucking dumb and boring.
Report their asses.

>>2686985

> Reported.

>>2686990
>reported

>>2686996

What for?

>>2686981
no, but what I'm saying is not quite what you are saying. It isn't FTL. The dot moves FTL yes, but if you were to time from the instant you moved your laser to the time the dot reached the other person, and then worked out the speed, it would be about the speed of light. The dot does not start moving instantly when you move the laser, and that delay is why it isn't FTL. She won't be able to see you've moved your laser instantly.

>>2686984 photon image
What's that?
Seen from Earth, the spot moves across the moon. Seen from the left side, the spot moves away from you, seen from the right side it moves towards you. Noting just pops into existence.

>>2687001

Well, that is what i´m trying to say.

>>2687000
are you really that stupid or you need explanation?

>>2687003

Photon image = interpreting light as a particle. The photons stop hitting the spot and start hitting another.
So the dot isn´t moving at all. It disappears and gets recreated at another spot.

>>2687004
what? I thought you were arguing that information could be transmitted FTL, I was saying it couldn't

>>2687006

Isn´t that the same? Explanation please. I reported him for trying to make others report others.

>>2687010

Originally i was saying it can´t be FTL. I was trying to make my point clear by using the proof by contradiction (think about what happens if it was true).

>>2687008
You can't interpret a photon as a particle, you interpret a photon as a photon.
And the dot is moving, not teleporting or whatever.

leonard susskind's holographic universe theory, explain!

>>2686941
"Ansver that!"

>>2686919

What are some of the practical applications of bose-einstein condensates?

>>2686941
Yes, if you neutralized all electrons with positrons in a molecule, the moelcue would tear apart into atoms.

>>2687026

I didn´t say that. We were talking about light. Light can be interpreted as photons.

>>2687095

Not the situation i provided.

>>2687146

Laser pointer isn't moving faster than the speed of light.

Rather, the beam isn't.

It'll just arc.

If you didn't realize this by now you're retarded.

>>2687157
Yeah. The DOT can move faster than the speed of light, but the dot is just an abstraction. No matter, energy or information are transmitted faster than c.

>>2687157

What the fuck man? I never claimed it was. Go read. I tried to show it wasn´t moving faster than light by assuming it is and showing it leads to fallacies.

>>2687162

No it can't. BECAUSE THERE'S A FUCKING DELAY.

HURR DURR LISTEN YOU FUCKTARDS.

I POINT A LASER AT SPOT A ON THE SUN. THEN I WAIT 8 FUCKING MINUTES UNTIL THE DOT GETS THERE.

THEN, I SUDDENLY MOVE IT. I HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER 8 FUCKING MINUTES FOR THE DOT TO MOVE.

GOD YOU IMBECILES. THE DOT WILL NOT INSTANTLY APPEAR. THE "DOT" IS JUST PHOTONS BOUNCING BACK.

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

>>2687174
u mad
I assumed we were talking about something like
>>2686719
The dot CAN move faster than c (just point a laser at the moon and sweep across), but this helps nothing.

>>2687157
The point of the laser moves faster then the speed of light.
Imagine I point with a laser to eastern horizon, then i turn around and point it at the western horizon. Imagine there was a spere surrounding us with a radius of 1 ly the point wil move Pi ly in a second or so it takes for you to turn around.

>>2687123
>practical applications

I don't think they are really in that stage of development yet. Applications are some years away. Fundemental science is still being done. Once that is all out of they way, then we give the shit to engineers for applications.

>>2686969

>>2687186
>>2687187

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You morons think the ultimate destination of the photons given the direction of the pointer means anything. Nothing is moving faster than light there.

Hurr guise I am in the Andromeda Galaxy right now in my mind, because I am imagining it, MY MIND IS GOING FTL!

Just shut it.

>>2687197
>means anything
yeah it doesnt mean anything, thats the point. Only such trivial examples can move faster then light

>>2687174

So is magnetism just the flow of electrons?

Fell free to tell me if that is not it at all.

>>2687197
>never taken a physics course
>thinks he knows shit about physics

>>2687224

>on 4chan
>Implying you aren't scum arguing with other retards instead of studying "physics"

Fuck off.

>>2687174

THIS is exactly what i wanted to say. Sorry it got so fucked up, i didn´t sleep last night.

>>2687197
Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

The dot moves FTL when you sweep a laser pointer across the moon, but that is worthless, as there is no energy, matter, or information that is continuously associated with that dot. The dot is just an abstraction. Relativity is not violated.

>>2687262

Stop posting.

>>2687264
Why? What I said is correct. PhD student in physics here.

>>2687273

You replied to that post with the same exact thing the post stated, but called said post a strawmen argument.

I feel sorry for whoever will have to work with you.

>>2687273

He provided a calculation of the speed with which the dot would move. Go read it and suck it.

Guys. seriously. The dot just isn´t moving.

Imagine a sphere around at, let´s say, 8 lightminutes distance. Point directly ahead of you. Light will need 8 minutes to reach the sphere.

Now let´s assume you are effing fast in moving the laser. So after one photon popped out of the laser, you can turn the laser 180 degrees around so that the next photon will be shot out in the other direction. After 8 minutes, the photon will hit the sphere.

Is this movement?

No it is not. That is because movement is defined as a continuous procedure. In order for this definition to apply, one would have to have a photon at EVERY point on the sphere that creates a path from the first location of the spot to the second, which is not the case.

Therefore, the dot is not moving.

>>2687284
>>2687287
It seems we're all talking past each other.

>>2687477
Please, just please STFU.
Go take a physics course dumbshit.

>>2687496

lolwut? Are you fucking kidding me? Physics major here.

>>2687477
>Therefore, the dot is not moving.
Semantics. The "point at which photons are currently impacting the sphere" can certainly be abstracted as an "object" with continuous motion. But as you said, it doesn't mean much - the "dot" is not actually a coherent object with energy/mass/information that it maintains over time.

>>2687519

> can certainly be abstracted as an "object" with continuous motion

How?

It´s obviously possible if "the dot" moves "slower than light", because then, every point of its path would get hit by a photon, but as soon as the dot would be faster than light, there appear dark part on the path, where no photon hits, so that the path is not continuous anymore.

>>2687529
Not really. There is no limit on the intensity of the laser.

If you want to impose a limit on how much continuity is required, what is it? A photon ever micrometer? Every nanometer? Just turn up the intensity, and you'll have photons as dense as you like, at any finite "speed" of the dot.

Nothing special happens when the dot exceeds c, because it was never an actual object with energy/mass/information to begin with. It's just "the point at which photons are currently impacting the sphere".

Question:

What is, in your opinion, the most likely cause of the end of the universe, and why?

>>2687568
PALIN 2012.

>>2687568

Another phase transition that creates a new force, so that photon´s actually do get a mass (symmetry breaking), which makes them no longer infinitley-ranged and causes every atom to fall apart.

This can happen any time, without warning.

>>2687553

>>2687553

I´d use a statistical argument.

For a continuous motion of "the dot", there should be at least 1 photon impact on every point of the sphere (mathematically every point). If this number is let´s say 1.2, i´d say it´s continuous, if it´s 0.8, it isn´t.

I have to rethink this for a second.

>>2687529
>>2687529
>where no photon hits

WTF are you talking about? are you high?

Aim laser at point r, r gets a photon.
Aim it at r + dr, then r + dr gets a photon.
Vary laser from r to d + dr, all radii from r to r + dr get a photon. Every photon will be seperated in its time of arival. The photon ar r will come sooner then the photon at r + dr

Hence I will see the photon first at r, then at r + dr. The beam will appear as it has moved from r to r + dr.

THIS IS MOTION DUMBSHIT!

>>2687595
>there should be at least 1 photon impact on every point of the sphere (mathematically every point)
The points are infinitely dense. It's a property of the real numbers.

If you make this the limit, then there's no such thing as continuous motion, even for actual objects with energy/mass/information.

>>2687568
We find out we are in a False Vacuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

>>2687529

>>2687654
What the fuck haha
Apart from being a horrible end it would be pretty awesome. I'd probably find it out just to show that something like that is possible.

bump for a /sci/ thread on /sci/

Why do you study Jewish science, OP?