Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, The Speed of Light and More...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 2036845" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>Technically, that isn't what is said at all. What is said is that light has the properties of both wave and particle. That doesn't say that light is both, merely that it can be described either way, depending upon the situation. In the end, the wave/particle nature of a thing is really a matter of mathematical convenience. Not so much a question of what the thing is, as what math you'll use to describe it. </p><p></p><p>So, you might venture to say that light is particle and wave, or that it is neither. The fact that light is not special might weigh into your choice. The coffee mug on your desk acts liek a wave, too. It just has so incredibly short a wavelength that for practical purposes you might as well call it a particle and be done with it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Ether Hypothesis was disproven by Michelson and Morley back in 1907. This may well impact your thoughts on the matter.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Mathematically speaking, quantum mechanics uses time as a dimension. And quantum mechanics makes the computer you posted with work, so you might want to be careful which parts of it you try to refute <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Time is observably not a universal constant. Many times, we have verified that the passage of time varies depending upon the relative motion of the observers. And that's not he oly source of different time-flow. There's a whole lot of experimental data that says you're wrong here. Sorry.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it isn't just time lag in transmission. That's accounted for separately. And it isn't just that the satellites are moving so fast. It's also because the ground and the satellites are at different points in Earth's gravity well. Relative motion aside, simple altitude also has a measureable effect.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Light has a constant speed <em>within a given medium</em>. The speed of light in vacuum is a bit faster than the speed of light in air, or water, yes. But in a given medium, the speed of light is observably constant. </p><p></p><p>- it has a constant <strong>maximum</strong> speed perhaps, but light slows down and refracts as it interacts with particles. This is observable, but it puzzles me why this isn't taken into account in any science journal I've read. Further, light seems to speed up again when the interference is removed. Again, why?</p><p></p><p>I don't think anything exists at the smallest level. If energy and matter are indeed one and the same as implied and later proved by E=mc[sup]2[/sup] then how does this transition work.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The subject of transparency and opacity is a matter of details of solid state physics. While I cannot think of a way to adequately explain it without math that makes even my head hurt, there's nothing very mysterious about it. </p><p></p><p>For an idaequate description - you must remember that matter is mostly empty space. It is not all all odd that a particle (or wave) of very small size should be able to pass through matter without encountering anything and being absorbed. There's really very little there to stop the light, you know. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is truth and falseness here. Quantum mechanically - complete rest is in fact impossible, as it would violate the Uncertainty Principle. However best theory says that the "origin of the Universe" is not a place within the Universe that you can point, making that idea a bit hinkey.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 2036845, member: 177"] Technically, that isn't what is said at all. What is said is that light has the properties of both wave and particle. That doesn't say that light is both, merely that it can be described either way, depending upon the situation. In the end, the wave/particle nature of a thing is really a matter of mathematical convenience. Not so much a question of what the thing is, as what math you'll use to describe it. So, you might venture to say that light is particle and wave, or that it is neither. The fact that light is not special might weigh into your choice. The coffee mug on your desk acts liek a wave, too. It just has so incredibly short a wavelength that for practical purposes you might as well call it a particle and be done with it. The Ether Hypothesis was disproven by Michelson and Morley back in 1907. This may well impact your thoughts on the matter. Mathematically speaking, quantum mechanics uses time as a dimension. And quantum mechanics makes the computer you posted with work, so you might want to be careful which parts of it you try to refute :) Time is observably not a universal constant. Many times, we have verified that the passage of time varies depending upon the relative motion of the observers. And that's not he oly source of different time-flow. There's a whole lot of experimental data that says you're wrong here. Sorry. No, it isn't just time lag in transmission. That's accounted for separately. And it isn't just that the satellites are moving so fast. It's also because the ground and the satellites are at different points in Earth's gravity well. Relative motion aside, simple altitude also has a measureable effect. Light has a constant speed [i]within a given medium[/i]. The speed of light in vacuum is a bit faster than the speed of light in air, or water, yes. But in a given medium, the speed of light is observably constant. - it has a constant [b]maximum[/b] speed perhaps, but light slows down and refracts as it interacts with particles. This is observable, but it puzzles me why this isn't taken into account in any science journal I've read. Further, light seems to speed up again when the interference is removed. Again, why? I don't think anything exists at the smallest level. If energy and matter are indeed one and the same as implied and later proved by E=mc[sup]2[/sup] then how does this transition work. The subject of transparency and opacity is a matter of details of solid state physics. While I cannot think of a way to adequately explain it without math that makes even my head hurt, there's nothing very mysterious about it. For an idaequate description - you must remember that matter is mostly empty space. It is not all all odd that a particle (or wave) of very small size should be able to pass through matter without encountering anything and being absorbed. There's really very little there to stop the light, you know. There is truth and falseness here. Quantum mechanically - complete rest is in fact impossible, as it would violate the Uncertainty Principle. However best theory says that the "origin of the Universe" is not a place within the Universe that you can point, making that idea a bit hinkey. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, The Speed of Light and More...
Top