h a l f b a k e r y
This would work fine, except in terms of success.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Approximately 300 k kilometers per hour is the listed speed
light. Or 2.9e+17 nanometers per second
Sound travels at 1230 kmph or 330 meters per second with
much less energy, so it is the oscilation back and forth of
molecules passing the sound on, ultimately these molecules
back to the same place" and (almost) no detectable
mass is passed on.
Lets look at the details of sound traveling at that speed
atmospheric air, with 4 nm between each nitrogen
Each molecule travels a total of 4 nm distance at that
Time is the distance divided by the speed. 4 nm / 300 x1e+9
nmps = 1e-11 seconds
Lightwaves differin wavelength. (Justjoking withat differin
spelling.) UV can be as small as 10 nanometers, violet is
400nm, red 700nm and infrared can reach 1mm = 1M nm.
As opposed to sound, lightwaves carry a significant amount
energy with them which can be perceived as a particle. This
much faster and stronger than sound that this energy can go
through space without interacting with mass. The amount
energy tranferred is received in discrete quantities of
energy and mass which we describe as
energy packets, and which we call photons. Why is this? In
my opinion this is because of units of discrete time.
If I have an object at 1 million nm (or 1 milimeter) away
from the light source, then the UV light reaches it almost
instantaniously as a wave. Actually the time it takes is:
time = distance by speed) 1e+6 nm / 2.9e+17 nm/sec =~
12 seconds, 3.4 trillionth's of a second.
But the ultraviolet is divided up into 100,000 pulses,
there at the same instant. The time it takes for each pulse
pulsate is 100,000 times shorter than the time it took the
infrared light to do the full distance, since each pulse must
traverse a 100,000-times shorter distance. So the time is
approximately 3.4e-17. Or about one hundredth of a
millionth of a billionth
Gamma rays can be as short as the Planck Length, derived
from calculations of heat, and no shorter. So here's our
minimum, postulating that the world is discrete and not
continuous, just like matter is discrete in bundles of atoms
and photons: So the smallest "wavelength" possible is 1.6e-
The time for a single Gamma ray wavelength to reach this
would be 1.6e-26 nm / 2.9e+17 nm/sec = 5.5e-44 sec
The shortest possible time unit, indeed the discrete
individually existing single unit of time is therefore 5.5e-44
parts of a second or one millionth of a septillionth of a
second. Anything less than that is being done simultaniously
at the same time, with no time advancement.
This was written here in order to show my halfbaked
misunderstanding and misrepresentation of science, and in
order to be corrected by extremely interesting thinkers who
will hopefully point me and the other uninformed readers
to interesting articles that will forever change our
view and understanding.
Planck time (and other units)
Prior art... [neutrinos_shadow, Jul 12 2021]
Just one example [4and20, Jul 12 2021]
Lower limit of gamma wavelength
photon-photon interaction [Frankx, Jul 15 2021]
|//to show my simultaneous misunderstanding and misrepresentation of science, and in order to be corrected//
|No, I think you are exactly right. Well done, and I hope you get nominated for next year's nibble prize.
|Actually is this not just blatantly obvious? Strip away all the vibration and wavelength guff, the smallest possible amount of time is simply the Planck length divided by the speed of light.
|Hmm... plank... beam... you have nailed it. You joist need to get the panel to support you, and hope no-one blocks you; rafter that, it should be plane sailing.
|Well done! You seem to have independently discovered
Planck Time, about 120 years after the man himself. And
your value is (to a reasonable approximation) correct.
|What [neutrinos_shadow] said - this is basically the
behind both the Plank units of length and time - it's an
to granulate/discrete-ise reality based on a given set of
|Is it considered sufficiently couth to point out that 2 of Planck's 4 universal constants -- speed of light, c, and universal gravity, G, were nowhere near being constants at the time and remain in some doubt?
|[4and20]; fun fact: the speed of light is now defined as a
constant. So if the "metre" is redefined, the "second" is too,
to keep c at 299,792,458m/s precisely.
|The metre being redefined out of existence to "solve" a problem is one of my ancient bugabears of course, posted long ago here on HB. However, if you describe c in m/s and the metre as its inverse 1/x second, it seems to me that at least the second would need to have some fixed value. However, the whole thing appears to be a transparently stupid game to hide universal ignorance, while surrounding such self-appointed keepers of the constants are scientists still constantly waving their arms about evidence of variable speeds of light.
|//variable speeds of light//
This I don't know about.
On the other hand, if the speed of light ISN'T constant, a lot
of science (cosmology in particular) falls apart...
|// Is it considered sufficiently couth to point out that 2 of Planck's 4 universal constants -- speed of light, c, and universal gravity, G, were nowhere near being constants at the time and remain in some doubt?//
|No. No it isn't, so well done.
|2 of 4 is not good enough. Doubt everything.
|I skimmed an article the other day which seemed to hint that there's an upper boundary of EM frequency. So, if so, there you are.
|Apparently [link] photon-photon scattering limits
cosmological gamma wavelength to greater than
1.5 x 10 ^-20 m. Above that energy, positron-
electron formation starts to happen (literally
creating matter from energy). Thats for
cosmological photons, so perhaps not an absolute
limit for photons generally, but presumably, above
a certain energy level, particle formation will
begin to dominate anyway.