Recent content by conquest

Thank you Dale and mostly Peter for completely answering my question

Thank you! This is what we were really talking about. For some reason I didn't see it the first time I read your post (sorry for the previous post).

To reiterate, I also agree about that. In fact also the people I was discussing with agree about that. In fact the idea is basically to give a cute example of something going faster than light without violating causality. The problem is really just to determine if it is possible to get 800...

Let me provide some details. The problem was definitely not with the misconception you point out. The problem was about how you make sure that all the participants move at the same time. This is necessary since otherwise people cannot switch seats because they bump into one another and so on and...

Actually I don't see any problem either, but it seemed the people I was discussing with did! So I assumed there was some subtlety that I was not seeing somehow.

Of course I do not claim that it shows any such violation, I thought it would simply supply a cute example of "something" going faster than the speed of light. But, to come back to my question, are you saying there is no problem with the thought experiment at all?

There is not really an observer involved, right. After they are seated the participants are always in the same inertial frame, so they should all agree on the simultaneity of events, right? Let me clarify that I obviously don't claim that any chair would be moving faster than the speed of...

Hi everyone, Recently I randomly thought of a thought experiment of something going faster than light, along the lines of a shadow or some other "non-information carrying object". In this case it would be an empty seat. The idea is to take 800 million and one chairs of half a meter breadth...

I am a bit confused about this, my question was not about whether or not there was an infinite amount of energy levels, only if there is a discrete set of levels. Can I interpret this as saying that this is also unverifiable or only that it has not ever been verified. I don't get this. Why...

Hey shinobi, Note that \partial_n is not the derivative of n, but rather the derivative in the direction of n. So suppose I have some function f(n) then note that since n=n(x,y) taking the derivative with respect to n should respect the chain rule and so...

Thank you both (ZapperZ and mfb) for the responses. However, I am still a bit confused. This I had indeed considered and it is very possible that my terminology is messed up. In the end my question is really more about the allowed energies for the radiation, not about the particle nature of...

Although I have not been thinking very much about actual physics for while now I suddenly got the urge to read a little bit about it and I decided to start by checking out the birth of quantum mechanics again. In the book quantum theory by Bohm in chapter 1 the ultra-violet catastrophe and its...

Hi, Excuse me for carelessly throwing weird terms around. Since you were considering Riemannian manifolds I figured you would be familiar with "smooth structure". Note that in the definition of Taylor expansion on Euclidean space you use that the function is differentiable (as often as you...

Hey Shooride, First of all this seems more like an adaption than a generalization since the Taylor expansion already makes perfect sense on a Riemannian manifold. Indeed it is a local approximation and locally the smooth structure on the manifold is simply that of the real Euclidean space. So...

Hello, Sorry for disregarding what seems to be a lengthy discussion about rather interesting topics, but I just thought I would put my 2 cents in on the question in the OP. Of course this question has already been answered in a myriad of ways, but I felt it was worth noting what seems to be the...