Can something move faster than light?

[Mercedes Benzene]

What do you mean by Sub-lightspeed?

 

Ummm.... sub-lightspeed sounds like sub-lightspeed to me.

As in: below the speed of light. :)

[Superstar]

I knew that! My question was suppose to be how far behind were the two examples in lightspeed?:)

[Mercedes Benzene]

Hahhaaa. I know. I was just messing with you. I figured you were not stupid.

[Michaelangelica]

In Quantum theory can't a photon move faster than light?

In fact it can communicate with another photon instantly.

 

Also isn't an electron considered to be in all points of its "orbit"/shell at once?

[djmacarro]

i dont think Dragonball is a great place to find examples in physics

[IDMclean]

there is a difference between translation, translocation and rotation. I do believe. Motion, like the speed of light is translation. Spin is Rotation, and ?super position/entanglement? is translocation.

 

If I remember the lecture correctly.

 

In the case of Translocation you do not actually move to where you wish to be, you do not translate across the intervening space. You simply hop there. Now the "faster than light speed" aspect of Photons communicating with one another, is a mixture of Co-rotation and Entanglement. I think. Where the two (or more) photons are with twin (or more) characteristics. Such that an alteration to one, will alter the other.

 

I have to admit, that my understanding of such phenomena is substandard, by my standards. So forgive me if I mistake.

[Jay-qu]

An explosion radiates outward at a finite, below c velocity, depending on the type of explosion. You can escape an explosion at the instant of explosion if you travel slightly faster than the explosion is.

[Qfwfq]

In Quantum theory can't a photon move faster than light?

In fact it can communicate with another photon instantly.

Bell's inequality violations show that quantum reality exhibits some kind of non-locality and this is still a very mysterious thing, it can't however be used to send a message faster than c.

 

Also isn't an electron considered to be in all points of its "orbit"/shell at once?

In a sense, you could say it isn't in any of them. In a sense you couldn't say either of the two things. They are un-physical statements. At the same time, some semi-classical arguments that consider the orbital as a charge distribution according to probability density lead to conclusions that fit well with observation. IMV this doesn't really lead to a conclusion of velocity exceeding c. Quantum reality is weird, we don't fully understand it.

 

Schrödinger was convinced for some time that the "wave" could be just about the actual reality, with a few appropriate assumptions. I entertained this idea myself when I was studying QM, without knowing whether or not it had been previously considered. Unfortunately it doesn't match well with some more advanced things, especially the above matter of Bell inequalities (it would infact be an interpretation having no problem with locality).

[Superstar]

So optical Illusion's is slower than lightspeed? How far behind is the speed of an Optical Illusion behind lightspeed?

 

Thanks alot Qfwfq! you are a very knowledgable person.:hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

So optical Illusion's is slower than lightspeed? How far behind is the speed of an Optical Illusion behind lightspeed?

No, not really on either question.

 

Optical illusions tend to be more an effect of our brain interpreting the incoming stimuli. Technically, the "brain" doesn't interpret it, but I'm sure you follow my meaning.

 

Anything "optical" is light, and hence travels AT light speed.

[Superstar]

No, not really on either question.

 

Optical illusions tend to be more an effect of our brain interpreting the incoming stimuli. Technically, the "brain" doesn't interpret it, but I'm sure you follow my meaning.

 

Anything "optical" is light, and hence travels AT light speed.

 

So basically the demonstration that I have displayed is lightspeed?

 

http://www.fileden.com/pview.php?fid=18948&fname=Goku_image.jpg

 

After Images/Optical illusions are lightspeed! wow thankyou InfiniteNow:hyper:

 

Though you may get some response of disagreement but I agree. I was debating about this whole optical illusion situation in class.

[Jay-qu]

No they are not! The light travels at light speed, thats all he said. Its an illusion thats all, and its due to light having a finite speed. The cartoon shows the effect in a highly hyperbolic way, the image would not fade and would not stay there for that long. The limit to how long the after image will remain is dependant on how far away you are standing from said image.

[Superstar]

No they are not! The light travels at light speed, thats all he said. Its an illusion thats all, and its due to light having a finite speed. The cartoon shows the effect in a highly hyperbolic way, the image would not fade and would not stay there for that long. The limit to how long the after image will remain is dependant on how far away you are standing from said image.

 

So how far behind is those images behind lightspeed?:)

[Superstar]

Is their such a thing as light trails? when an object is moving at lightspeed will light trails follow behind?

[Jay-qu]

DragonBall Z makes a poor analogy to what you may call an 'after-image' you cant determine what speed he must be travelling at because it would simply not occur to this degree.

[CraigD]

Is their such a thing as light trails? when an object is moving at lightspeed will light trails follow behind?

I gather that what Superstar means by light trials is the apparently continuous glowing objects that one perceives looking when looking at, for example, an “LED spinner” toy such as this ”3 inch LED spinner globe”.

 

They’re a neurological/perceptual effect, due to an artifact commonly called “persistence of vision”. This is the same effect that allows us to perceive smooth motion from a series of still images presented as slowly as 10 frames per second. If you study certain video images, you’ll note that modern animators often update expensive-to-render parts of an animated sequence at less than this rate, without most viewers being aware of it.

 

Until the late 1970s, most scientists believed persistence of vision to result from limitations on how quickly the eye and brain could react to changes in light, much as light trails and blurring occurs in a (digital or film) camera with a long shutter speed setting. Increased research into eye and brain physiology, as well as perceptual testing, now leads us to conclude that this was incorrect. Physiologically, individual nerves and retinal photoreceptors appear to be able to detect repeated light pulses approaching 200,000 cycles per second (Hz). Though visual perception is increasingly recognized to be a very complicated and far from fully understood process, testing has revealed that practically, a person with normal vision can perceive flickers at least as rapid as 100 Hz.

 

It appears that perceiving light trails and smooth motion in video images is due primarily to how the brain translates sensation (input) into meaning, not due to physical limitations, as is the case with a camera.

 

What’s important to note about light trails is that they’re not objectively, physically real. Photons don’t smear out behind moving light sources like paint on a canvas, get blown by moving wind, or anything like this. The phenomena of light trails is all “in our heads”.

[Superstar]

Thankyou you guys have been very helpful!!:)