Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Ummm....doesn't this power cord go against Einsteins theory of relitivity?.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Ummm....doesn't this power cord go against Einsteins theory of relitivity?. - Page 2

Quote:
 Originally posted by Czilla9000Wave.
I thought it had both particle-like and wave-like behaviours.

Quote:
 using the F word only increases the chance of this thread being locked. Lets keep this discussion civil.
They probably won't lock it, but markl was starting to sound like a jackass.
Light does have both Particle and Wave characteristics. I think I'll go and get a physics book at the library again.
calm down radrd, go take a jagged little pill or something...
Quote:
 Originally posted by braillediverIs light a particle or a wave?
Actually, it's both. Light is a stream of photons (tiny little particles way smaller than an electron) which travel in a wave; light has a dual nature. According to my chemistry book, Einstein's theory of relativity proves that energy has mass, not that you can't accelerate anything to the speed of light; this was backed up by the experiments of Arthur Compton in 1922.

Look at his famous formula E=MC^2. E is energy, in joules; m is mass, in kg; and c is the speed of light, appx 3.0X10^8 meters per second.

Let's look at this. An electron weighs 9.1X10^-31 kg. Therefore:

E= 9.1X10^-31 * (3.0X10^8)^2

So it would take 8.19X10^-14 joules to accelerate one electron to the speed of light. 4.19 joules = 1 cal, so it would take 1.95X10^-14 calories, or 1.95X10^-10 kilocalories. That means that the energy found in one can of soda pop (140 kilocalories) could accelerate 7.16X10^11 electrons to the speed of light.

I have no idea if this power cord can actually accelerate electrons back to the speed of light, I doubt it, but I think that it is theoretically possible. I'll ask my science teacher tomorrow.
Quote:
 calm down radrd, go take a jagged little pill or something...
You're right. I apologize. Sorry markl.

Yet, I won't be altering my post.

Edit: Wait a minute, did Pigmode tell me to go kill myself...?

Remember, we are all on the same "side" (in this thread). Its hard enough already, we don't need to be at each others throats.

Zilla,
You emailed an inquiry to VD right? Aren't you going to post it here so we can anticipate an answer? Remember, it may be classified information you're asking for. They could tell you, but then...
Quote:
 Originally posted by pigmodeZilla, You emailed an inquiry to VD right? Aren't you going to post it here so we can anticipate an answer? Remember, it may be classified information you're asking for. They could tell you, but then...

I email is mail.com....they are very very slow. It takes them forever to update the "sent messages" box.

I am going on a field trip with the rest of my 9th grade class. I will ask my 9th physics teacher about it as well.

*SMACKS HIMSELF ON THE HEAD* My dad is a physicist who works for NASA and has a Ph.D...I will go ask him.
Quote:
 Originally posted by radrd Edit: Wait a minute, did Pigmode tell me to go kill myself...?
No, I didn't mean it that way. (why can't this generation just sing about drugs like we used to?)
Quote:
 Originally posted by DanGCzilla, I think brailledriver was joking -- Louis deBroglie(sp?) showed that light is both a particle and a wave.
Yep. His equation is

lambda = h/mv

lambda is distance, in meters, between two peaks of a wave
h is Plank's constant (6.626X10^-34 joules * seconds)
m is mass
v is velocity

It let's you calculate the wavelength of a particle.

Looking at my last post, the final number I gave was assuming that the electron wasn't moving at all. An electron is probably moving at what, 90% the speed of light, at any given moment? So it would require way less than 1.95X10^-10 kilocalories to accelerate one electron from it's ground state to the speed of light. I don't think that the energy requirements to accelerate the electrons would be an issue; however, I don't understand how they could actually do it.

I also don't quite understand why people are getting pissed off that czilla doesn't have the cable in question. He was only asking if VD's claims are possible, he wasn't commenting on the sound or quality of the cable.
Quote:
 No, I didn't mean it that way. (why can't this generation just sing about drugs like we used to?)
Because our drugs tend to kill us.
Ok...I called up my dad at work and asked him (my dad is a NASA scientist and has a Ph.D in physics.) He spoke very very fast, so I did not catch it all..but, this is what I gathered:

An electron can not be accelerated to the speed of light, becuase in has mass. However it can get very, very, close. He also said light has particle and wavelike characteristics.

He thought I was asking this question for a physics test, but I then told him the real reason this is sorta what he said:

"(laugh) Well...it depends on the margin of error...the cable manufactuer may claim that it can go 99.9% of the speed of light...which may be plausible. But it can never go the speed of light."
Quote:
 Originally posted by Czilla9000Ok...I called up my dad at work and asked him (my dad is a NASA scientist and has a Ph.D in physics.) He spoke very very fast, so I did not catch it all..but, this is what I gathered: An electron can not be accelerated to the speed of light, becuase in has mass. However it can get very, very, close. He also said light has particle and wavelike characteristics. He thought I was asking this question for a physics test, but I then told him the real reason this is sorta what he said: "(laugh) Well...it depends on the margin of error...the cable manufactuer may claim that it can go 99.9% of the speed of light...which may be plausible. But it can never go the speed of light."
That makes sense. I can't find anything in my chemistry book to support / refute that. It is afterall, a chemistry book, not a physics book, so this stuff was just mentioned briefly in relation to atomic spectrums, wavelengths, etc. One more interesting thing that I just read: "All matter exhibits both particlulate and wave properties. Large pieces of matter, such as baseballs, exhibit predominantly particulate properties. The associated wavelength is so small that it is not observed." So using de Broglie's equation, you could calculate YOUR wavelength.
Einstein was all wrong, BTW. But if you guys want to quote him, he basically said that as an object approaches the speed of light the mass of that object approaches infinity. So no speed of light for anything.

If you want to know the real deal on physics, go read up on Superstring theory.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
• Ummm....doesn't this power cord go against Einsteins theory of relitivity?.