Wavelength equals Planck's constant divided by mass and velocity, which can be written as w=dmt/mv.
If we cancel mass, then translate the remaining variables into meters and seconds for the sake of demonstration, we get w=meters*second/(meters/second). This translates into seconds squared, which I'll call time (t) squared. — Enrique
This says nothing, of course, about the possibility of the existence or non existence of things that travel at speeds above c, it just rules out those things having accelerated to those speeds from sublight speeds. Einstein was always clear that fixing c as a constant for all frames of reference was an assumption, and one that would be finally justified by empirical results, as it has been numerous times. Dimensional analysis has a role in physics, of course, but as far as I'm aware it's just a basic tool to avoid simple errors, and to use if for that, you need to get the dimensions right from the beginning. — jkg20
Please return to metaphysics. The real deal is a challenge. — jgill
The equations of special relativity entail that nothing can accelerate up to or beyond the speed of light, taken as the constant c, since the logical consequence would be a division by zero. — jkg20
But equations do not determine reality. — jgill
Brains by contrast, with the elaborate quantum machinery of their unique biochemistry, are like quantum suns, radiating entanglement effects on a large scale while overriding classical time dilation. — Enrique
A reference in this regard would be nice. I know very little about the quantum world. — jgill
Force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, and energy equals mass times the squared speed of light, E=m(c^squared).
If we solve for mass and then equate, F/a=E/(c^squared), and cross multiplying yields Ea=F(c^squared). — Enrique
If motion is fundamentally supraspatiotemporal, it seems plausible that light can be part of a large spectrum that extends in the direction of more rapid speeds, while the acceleration of massive bodies towards light speed constitutes a very narrow range of material occurrence. — Enrique
For those knowledgeable about physics, what is the significance of ft=1? It seems that as energy increases, time contraction occurs, and if the energy increase is nonlinear by whatever measure, time will contract nonlinearly, perhaps exponentially. Maybe a constant would be necessary to scale this properly. Distance and wavelength probably need to be defined with more precision, even though the equation in this crude form does capture the essence of correlations being considered. — Enrique
Try reading three threads I posted awhile back at this site to get a feel for the concepts, which seem to be unprecedented:
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly — Enrique
Causation at the quantum scale happens almost instantaneously, and the elapsed time is faster the more high energy the matter is. Some of the highest energy matter on Earth is electricity, for it is made up of maximally compacted electrons. This high energy means that it conveys quantum entanglement effects more robustly than probably any alternate form of Earthbound matter.
The brain with its one hundred trillion synaptic connections is an extremely powerful electric field, and so radiates quantum causation like an electron differential or electrical potential sun, seemingly entangled with surrounding matter in an instantaneous way that defies the laws of classical physics. This can perhaps explain the mystical experiences such as synchronicity that many have, and the philosophical doctrine of “all is mind” which we see surfacing throughout history. — Enrique
Vast difference between quantum and classical phenomena can be explained by the deep disjunct between subatomic and macroatomic scales. The subatomic scale contains all the energy of the classical scale, but the relatively tiny diameter of its highest probability concentrations compared to the total probability wave means that a huge time contraction is in effect, making the relative motions of subatomic matter almost instantaneous. This can be contrasted with the greater continuity of macroatomic to macroscopically Earthlike scales that produces dynamics of classical physics. — Enrique
1 Doesn't really break the "no object faster than the speed of light" principle: as per my post above, the speed that galaxies appear to be receding at is a function of both the velocity of the galaxy which is sublight and the expansion rate of space, which is not a speed at all. — jkg20
You know, you sound very authoritative in all this, but I don't have the knowledge to engage you, and I don't know if you actually know what you are talking about. But I give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be good if kenosha kid or another real physicists would comment. — jgill
That's an affirmative stance, but is it necessarily wise to accord a benefit of doubt, prior to witnessing an even partial demonstration of an argument's veracity? — Aryamoy Mitra
\1 - the size of the universe, which on current estimates is more than 98bn light years across - and therefore more than 4 times the widest spread that could be achieved by an exploding singularity at the speed of light. — Gary Enfield
You think is flawed? All that can mean is that you think it's flawed. Is it flawed? Do you know? Did you pay any attention to it? What flaws? What does it ignore?the video which Tim provided is, I think, flawed, because it mixes concepts and ignores the basics. — Gary Enfield
Oh, citation/reference/evidence please?when space is probably not expanding - but the objects within it are just spreading out — Gary Enfield
Oh, citation/reference/evidence please? — tim wood
The overall effect is still that things had to travel faster than the speed of light to get from the Big Bang point, to the extremities of what we can see and theorize about in the universe, in absolute terms. Nobody knows how big the Universe is because we can't see its outer limits (if indeed, there are any). — Gary Enfield
The benefit of doubt in the context of babble is inconsequential. — jgill
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.