[Dragonclaw]

I'm an amateur at quantum physics, so please bear me.

This all started when I asked myself this question, "What would happen if we merged two FTL wavelengths together?".

The dual nature of light indicates that a single wavelength could go FTL as it has zero/negilible mass, but multiple wavelengths (a spectrum) cannot as they exhibit the properties of mass.

But by merging two FTL wavelengths together, they begin to exhibit the properties of mass and therefore drop to the speed of light. What about the law of energy conservation. The energy into a system must equal the energy out of a system unless there's some type of potential/kenetic energy involved. E(in)=E(out). Or mc^2=mc^2.

If the two FTL wavelengths drop to the speed of light then the mass must increase exponentially on the other side of the equation. But light cannot create mass out of nothing, therefore it must do so in the form of force. F=ma.

I thought at first this be a great way to create a force field, but after further reflection, I realized the light was decelerating, therefore creating a negative force.

Could this be what is happening near a blackhole? The gravity of the blackhole forces the light to sepearate into individual wavelengths then with greater force, makes these wavelengths go FTL. Because of the shape and size of the blackhole, it forces these FTL wavelengths back together creating a massive negative force. Possibly just outside the core blackhole of fluidic neutrons. A balance of light and matter.

This seemed a little too simplistic. So I started to consider the interaction of light and superstring matter as it neared the blackhole. Under normal conditions, visible light is absorbed and emitted by matter with only a nanosecond differential. But as matter nears the blackhole, it begins to superstring where the electron takes longer to circle the nucleus. This time differential from absorbtion to emission begins to increase. Eventually, this time gap becomes great enough to notice a significant change in the superstring material. The matter increases it's velocity, thus increases it's potential energy significantly. Is it possible that this difference in potential energy of matter, from the time light is absorbed to the time it is emitted, can transfer ,in part, some of it's energy?

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't have to. As light is absorbed and emitted by the superstring material, the atom will emit the light forward, towards the blackhole. It will do so at the speed of light, unless the atom is almost at the speed of light. At this point, it may have no choice but to send the wavelength FTL.

The energy needed to send the wavelength FTL could be acquired by the potential energy of the atom. If there is a transfer of potential energy from the atom to the photon, it may also do so in the form of altering the wavelength to that of a higher energy. Slowly converted the wavelengths to x-rays or stronger.

This would also indicate different regions near the blackhole where the superstring material lies, dependent on the wavelengths currently occupying that region.

If this is what is creating the FTL wavelengths, then they would merge together as they neared the blackhole, creating a massive negative force. Creating a pseudo-blackhole, just outside the actual one of fluidic neutrons, possibly stopping the core from simply collapsing in on itself.

Is it possible to create artificial FTL wavelengths? If the superstring material approaching the speed of light is the means, and superstring material has a absolute zero tempature, then perhaps Bose-Einstien's condensates are the answer.

If we could artificially superstring the condensate and increase it's potential energy, could this produce an artificial FTL wavelength?

There's alot more questions and propositions I have but this is the core of it. Just an amateur blogging his views.

Respectfully,
Raymond Richard
140 City Rd, Saint John, N.B.
Canada.

[mkirkpatrick]

Welcome to the toe Dragonsclaw,
All things are possible in the realm of mind,all the wavelenghths that youcould shake a stick at.
Do black holes really absorb light,or is light using this spinner as a transport
mode to another dimension?Who know!Do you?



kind regards michael.

[Guille]

Hi dragonclaw,

You see, the problem with the equations E=mc^2 and F=ma is that in the first one mass and energy are the variables and c^2 (or actually c) is the constant. Whiles in Newton's force and acceleration variate, and mass is constant. This is the exact incompatible thing between the two geniuses.

[Dragonclaw]

Thank You for taking the time to read my proposal.

Re:MKirkpatrick,

You make a valid point, all this is hypothetical without proof. What experiment could prove or disprove this theory if it hasn't been done already. This site already led me to another theorm called the Raman effect. Is this proof or disproof in the thoery? Does the Raman effect apply to materials at rest or in motion.
An experiment might be possible...
Place a centrifuge into a vacuum, possibly space and place a semi-transparent and/or a transparent material at one or both ends. Then accelerate the material at a constant acceleration to it's maximum. All the while sending a single wavelength and/or multiple wavelengths at it. By viewing the light that is emmitted, we could determine if the momental potential energy is, in part, transferred to the photon. Taking into account wavefronts, droppler effects, etc. Then seeing if the wavelengths are more energetic.

Another thought was if light is a secondary fuel to a blackhole, then the absence/addition of it could change the gravitation force around the blackhole. If the FTL wavelengths were to be reduced, then the core fluidic material would collapse even further in on itself. Would this increase density compensate for the loss of negative force from the loss of FTL wavelengths.
If it did, would there be a time dilation between the loss and the compensation and would a slight gravitaional flux be noticable. How big of a time dilation would there be? What is the speed of gravity?

Are there any other experiments or detectable evident to support or disprove this theory?



Re:Guille

Quantum Theory really hurts the head when trying to understand it. It sounds as if you understand it very well...you must have a very big asperin bottle. The formulas E=mc^2 and F=ma sounds as if they are paradoxal. There must of been some attempt to explain this...could you forward a link for me to read. Wouldn't m=m/1-(c^2-V^2)^.5 begin to explain this discepancy?
Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You all.

Respectfully,
Raymond Richard.

[Guille]

Dragonclaw,

To the question you ask mkirkpatrik about the speed of gravity, I can tell you that most physicists believe the speed of gravity is equal to that of light, and there are recent experiments (just do google search) that show this is probably true. By the way, that speed is 300,000 km/s (in Spain we measure in km, maybe you do in miles?).

Now, the thing about E=mc^2 and F=ma is that for Einstein's equatin, m is variable, whiles for Newton's m is constant. So we can't put together or connect the equations in any manner, because their variables and constants are different. We can't, simply. Becuase we end up to absurd equations, such as the one you give or one I derive here: m=E/c^2=F/a so if c^2=a then Energy=Force. I hope you now understand why we can't think of them both together.

By the way, yesterday I was surfing around royal's society web and I find out a very interesting debate done this year about Einstein and Newton. They debated who was a better genius, who was a better scientist, who contributed more positivelly to humanit, and who help contributed more taking in accout the scientific knowledge at each's time. It's long but quite interesting, I give you here a link: http://www.royalsociety.co.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=3879

[dleviwing]

Guille;
I think you may wish to review your premise since Einstein's equation only refers to "RADIANT ENERGY" and is not comparable to F=ma directly.

E=mc^2=hf is more appropriate.

Dave

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Guille; I think you may wish to review your premise since Einstein's equation only refers to "RADIANT ENERGY" and is not comparable to F=ma directly. E=mc^2=hf is more appropriate. Dave

If you had read my previous posts you would see what I'm saying is the same as whay you've said: that Einstein's equation is not comparable or relationable to F=ma. I just included my short derivation of E=F as an example of the fallacy that it is to unite them or put them together in any way.

[dleviwing]

Sorry Guille, I didn't read it that way.

BTW: Newton wins the debate since he created the math that Einstein was unable to use without consulting a mathematician. It is quite likely that you have a higher IQ than Einstein had.
Dave

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Sorry Guille, I didn't read it that way. BTW: Newton wins the debate since he created the math that Einstein was unable to use without consulting a mathematician. It is quite likely that you have a higher IQ than Einstein had. Dave

I agree. Newton was not only had a bigger IQ than Einstein, but he was a better scientist, and contribute dmore to humanity and science: he actually is the figure that separated, in his principia, science form philosophy. And that earthquake, as big as the one that occured when the americas devided from euroasiafrica, still makes people tremble when they get into one discipline whiles trying to do the other.

This week in one of the only 2 spanish private tv channels, they are doing the "grand test of inteligence" show. In the adverb they say Einstein had 160 IQ whiles Marylin Monroe 162 IQ, making fun and contradiction to the common-thinking (wrong) that blond wemen are stupid and that Einstein was the smartest of all times.

One thing they say in the debate in favor of Einstein is quite important: that who is right shoul dbe regarded as the best contributor. And Newton looses there. But of course, if Einstein wouldn't ahve been there, very soon, maybe a pair of years later, another scientist would have done what he did. Whiles if Newton had never been there, probably the whole of humanity would have retarded, and a decades or centuries would have passed until one did what he did.

But both of them, I don't see why they are seen as such big icons in science: they were both crazy (on of paranoya, one of imagniation), and they based their development on other's ideas (one on Hooke's idea, one on planck's). It's like If I go and start developing a TOE from the principles of Antonio's equations for quantized and continuous space.

[dleviwing]

Guille;
Neither Newton nor Einstein contributed much to society, only to academic sciences.

It is quite obvious that those presenting the TV program do not know much about the history of science. Michelson, Hertz, Dirac, Pasture, Madam Curie, and hundreds of other scientist have made greater contributions to science and society than either of them.
Dave