Saturday, April 7, 2012

Moving faster than the speed of light

I've been thinking about physics a lot lately, and I'm starting to jot things down, so I don't keep going over the same ground again but also to help me iron out the logical inconsistencies that can creep in when you do a problem in Caput.  A lot of this is really me just thinking about physics that I've read, and doing thought experiments so I can understand it.

This post is thoughts about what would happen if you moved faster than the speed of light.  Start with these premises:
  • The only way we know about a particle (anything really) is the effect / force that particle exerts on other particles.
    • You push a block with your hand:  the electric / magnetic forces from  the electrons in the atoms in the proteins / molecules in the cells in your hand interact with the electrons in the atoms in the molecules (cellulose) in the block of wood
    • The above example is for electricity and magnetism, but (I've read) applies equally well to other, more exotic forces - e.g. the strong nuclear force between quarks in an atom's nucleus
  • The forces between particles can be represented as fields.  Fields are vectors that exist through space that indicate the force (magnitude, direction) that a "test" particle would experience if it were at that location
    • Imagine 2 charged particles.  From Coulomb's law, we can calculate the force between them.  Or, for each particle we could determine the field it generates throughout space.  Then, the force on each particle is determined by the field generated by the other particle.
  • Movement of particles causes changes in the fields
    • As the location of 2 particles gets closer together, the force they exert on each other increases.  Similarly, the field strength increases.  
  • The changes in the fields propagates at the speed of light
The above might sound crazy, but they are well established physics, with tons of experimental evidence.  Given the above it is almost nonsensical to talk about a particle moving faster than the speed of light.  Which is somewhat expected - the above description of reality is based on the tenet that nothing travels faster than light.  But the exercise of investigating what would happen if something moved faster than light helps me understand the relationships.  So, 2 scenarios to imagine:

Particle approaches at faster than light

The particle will arrive at a location before the effect of the particle being at the location does. This is just logically inconsistent.

Particle moves away faster than light

This situation is harder to rule out.  As the particle recedes, it is not arriving before its effect.  The problem with this one occurs for two situations I can think of:

1.  Imagine another particle, chasing this one.  The "effective" location, based on the fields, is only moving at the speed of light.  In this case, the particle has effectively "disappeared".  The chasing particle sees only the location represented by the field

2. Imagine instead of a single particle, an atom moving faster than the speed of light.  Background:  for a stationary atom emitting radiation, the frequency is intrinsic to the motion of the oscillation of the electron(s) within the atom.  The radiation, regardless of the relative velocity between the emitting atom and the observer, propagates at the speed of light.  The wavelength is determined by the frequency and the speed of light.

Now, for the atom moving faster than the speed of light:  Take the period of oscillation, imagine the first cycle has occurred.  Now, in this period of time, the atom has traveled a distance greater than the wavelength of the radiation, and a new cycle occurs.  So the separation in peaks / troughs between the first and second cycle is greater than the wavelength (as it would be defined for regular sub-luminal speeds).  Furthermore, for the third cycle, the discrepancy is even greater.  So, even though the atom is travelling at constant velocity, the radiation is continuously increasingly red-shifted (chirped down!).   Effectively, as time goes on, the emission of radiation is red-shifted until it would disappear completely.  Now, this description is discrete, but it could be made continuous.

Why would the above be impossible or inconsistent?  Well, the particle, in this case, has effectively disappeared from the universe, since internally it is emitting radiation, but this vanishes / does not appear anywhere else.

The reverse of this is also possible to imagine, in which an atom emitting radiation approaches at faster than the speed of light, and the radiation is continuously increasingly blue shifted.  In this case, leaving aside the issue from above of the particle arriving before its effect, the radiation observed would be increasingly blue shifted over time (chirped up!).  Where is the increased power / energy coming from?  Again, the internal state of the atom is disconnected from the rest of the universe.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

What is "Field Momentum"

I remember hearing about "Field Momentum" - the idea that the electromagnetic fields (e.g. radiation) could have momentum and not understanding how that could be possible.  Particles / matter have momentum.  I've seen the equation and heard that photons have momentum, but did not understand.  But reading today I remembered / rediscovered some understanding.

If you have 2 particles (A and B), uncharged, then you can completely describe the state of the system by the position and momentum of each particle.

However, if the particles are charged, you need more information.  Imagine that a and b are not close to each other and are moving slowly.  Since these particles are charged, their motions affect each other.  The mechanism is through the electromagnetic field - as particle A moves, the electromagnetic field changes.  This change propagates away from particle A at the speed of light.  Particle B is affected by the motion of A sometime later depending upon its distance away from A.  So if you have a snapshot of the position and momentum of A and B, there could still be "information in transit" from A to B (or vice-versa) that has not yet affected their momentum/position, and you need to capture that information in order to fully describe the system.

Field momentum captures this information, and it tries to do it in a way that is similar (symmetric) with the way it is captured for the particles.

Some examples:
Example 1 - in the snapshot, A and B are slow moving and far apart.  Prior to the snapshot they were also slow moving and far apart.  A and B continue their slow motions.

Example 2 - A and B are slow moving in your snapshot, but immediately prior to the snapshot A was oscillating rapidly.  Not captured by the position and momentum of A and B are the electromagnetic waves that currently propagating from A to B.  Without these waves, A and B would continue as in example 1 (slow regular motion) - which would be incorrect, because when the waves reach B, B will begin to oscillate (perhaps rapidly if the mass to charge ratio of B is similar to A).

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

With notably rare exceptions...

Alan Greenspan: complete a*****e:
http://crookedtimber.org/2011/03/30/with-notably-rare-exceptions/

Alan Greenspan, regarding modern finance:
With notably rare exceptions (2008, for example), the global “invisible hand” has created relatively stable exchange rates, interest rates, prices, and wage rates

 I've extracted my favorites from the comment section in the original

With notably rare exceptions, Newt Gingrich is a loyal and faithful husband.

Though unredeemably(sic) opaque, Mr. Madoff’s operations delivered excellent returns, with notably rare exceptions.

With notably rare exceptions, the levees protecting New Orleans have held fast in the face of major hurricanes.
        
With notably rare exceptions, petroleum extraction has minimal environmental impact.

With notably rare exceptions, the New England Patriots were undefeated in the 2007-2008 season.

With notably rare exceptions, Ted Kennedy’s driving was superb.

With notably rare exceptions, Achilles was invincible.

With notably rare exceptions, atomic energy has been used to the benefit of mankind.

With notably rare exceptions (1940, for example), the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is impressively stable.

With notably rare exceptions, allowing Ayn Rand’s acolytes to serve as Federal Reserve chairmen has worked out well, both for the nation and the world.

With notably rare exceptions (e.g. 2004, 2011), living on the shores of the Pacific Ocean is perfectly safe.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Notes on Real Genius

At the end of the movie they mount a small optical component on Prof. Hathaway's house.  It looks like a retroreflector. That didn't make sense to me, at first.  But then I considered that they may have intended to fire the beam back at the source, damaging it.  This could explain why the laser fails catastrophically at the end of the movie.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

The chandelier needed something...

The chandelier needed something to make it mine:

Roombug

This guy was in a Roomba I've had for over a year and hadn't gotten around to using:


I wonder what he was living on in there?