FTL HELP!

[Influx]

A light echo is a phenomenon observed in astronomy. Analogous to an echo of sound, a light echo is produced when a sudden flash or burst of light, such as that observed in novae, is reflected off a source and arrives at the viewer some time after the initial flash. Due to their geometries, light echoes can produce the illusion of superluminal speeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_echo

I am having trouble understanding this.



Does this look like light illuminating preexisting interstellar dust, or the dust itself expanding faster than light?
I mean it does not look like on object is being illuminated, because the said object changes shape as it expands!
Plus, wouldn't the stars be dimmer whose light had to pass through the interstellar dust cloud if there was a preexisting dust cloud? Also using the star patterns as a reference point, doesn't it appear as if the maw, where the red star is, has grow bigger?

LOOK at the DATES!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:V838_ ... ansion.jpg

Help me out here, cause I am a moron, and cant seem to grasp how light that takes longer to reach you causes an FTL illusion!

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/ima ... nd+(STScI)

AMAZING ANIMATION! I swear it looks like the dust cloud is expanding FTL! I mean the blue edges around the dust cloud stay the same, for the most part!

[Drethon]

That is pretty cool. The biggest problem is figuring out the relationship of everything.

If the object that went "nova" is much closer to us than the other stars than it might not be expanding faster than light but the question does remain as to why the stars don't seem to be affected by the dust cloud. The exposure time could be related and there is nothing giving the actuall illumination of everything in each picture.

If the object is behind the stars then it would seem to be absolutely huge and expanding extremely fast even if it is just light.

Love to see some of these questions answered.

[Orlando]

Am I retarded or does that statement make any sense;

"The Illusion of Superluminal Speed"

How can my eyes see something faster than light?

I can only see illusions at the speed of light, or am I missing something?

Peace
Or

[Grey Cloud]

Excellent point Orlando.
Maybe they sell 'Faster than light specs - only £1.99 plus p + p' on the back cover of science journals?

[redeye]

I had a pair of those faster than light specs, but I put them down somewhere and now I can't find them!

Cheers!

[junglelord]

I want to offer a thought.
Superluminal propagation is real.
Quantum Entanglement experiments have proven this, so that is not debateable.
Superluminal processess should progess via the equation pi/2 x c
This has been noted by Wheatstone, Tesla and others like Dollard.
The electrostatic propagation is derived via the formula pi/2 x c
This equals a speed of 291,000 miles a sec....the speed of light is of course basicly 186,00 miles a sec.
The universe is electrostatic in nature and the plasma excitation of a propagating Electrostatic Impulse would follow the rule of thumb of Superluminal speeds.

What you see is what you get....if its not a geometric illusion!


I offer a idea that a detailed velocity analysis should be around 291,000 miles a second if its real and not placement geometry.

[solrey]

Nice analysis, there junglelord. I was just about to comment with something similar but you already said it very well.

Has the actual propagation speed been determined?

As that 291,000 mile/s "longitudinal" wave expands outward it energizes the surrounding plasma pushing it into glow mode, like an electrostatic shock wave.

[allynh]

You have at least two possible explanations that I can see. (Now saying that does not exclude other explanations or make either one I present true.)

1) That a shell of material actually expanded at speeds faster than what we consider light to be.

That is scary, but well within what the EU guys have mentioned before.

2) That it is a light show similar to a marquee sign.

Electronic signage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signage

In a marquee sign the light bulbs don't move, the illusion of motion is caused by the lights turning on/off in a sequence.

Pachinko_LED small.jpg (42.09 KiB) Viewed 12245 times

So in what appears to be a nova, none of the material actually moved, but a cascading wave of glow moved outward from the center as the electrical field it was embedded in changed.

If you recall Comet Holmes in October 2007, it appeared to puff out to larger than the Sun. There is no physical way for the material from the small comet body to expand at high speed then stop. I think what we saw was the same thing as your nova.

That implies that the light display from Comet Holmes is essentially the same as the nova. The only reason the holes appear in the shell around the nova is because of the uneven distribution of material to be caught in the glow mode from the galactic current.

That would also imply that what appears to be an expanding shell of material from a "nova" may not actually be moving material at all, but simple a marquee light sign. That is a profound implication at all levels. There may be no "exploding" stars. No nova the way we have always understood them to be. That is deeply disturbing.

If we could have seen the image in all frequencies we may have seen a different series of images.

That of course does not explain the bizarre Wiki article and how reflected light from the expanding shell could be held back and all arrive in a matter of months to give the illusion of faster than light expansion. I see what they are trying to say, but I am unconvinced by their explanation.

And I hope that finding some reasonable explanation does not detract from a truly awesome event. Wow.

[Journeyman]

I'm a bit puzzled also...


It seems to me that any reflection from B or C is going to show the 'flash' from a different location. At time T0 the flash occurs. At time Tc the flash arrives at C & is reflected. At time Tb the flash arrives at B & is reflected (or perhaps refracted)

No matter what, the reflection is going to be the flash from T0 when the original flash occurred, so what we would see is 3 different sources of the original flash. I'm not sure where the wiki came from but to me, it seems a bit confused about spatial relationships. They seem to be implying that the reflections from C & B will show a more evolved 'flash' signature & so show an aging process. I can't see where they get that assumption.

[StevenO]

What it could also prove is that the method of determining stellar distances or positions is spectacularly wrong.

[allynh]

The thing is. If the observed event is just like a marquee, then a "supernova" is just like a black hole or neutron star, a fabrication. It makes terrifying sense, because if stars are not exploding bombs, then they can't blow up as a supernova. That means elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are not made in one big blast to be spread around.

The pulse of light from what we think is a supernova is just a light show, no blast, no shell of expanding gas.

[solrey]

These papers on EMP's seem relevant:

Finite energy superluminal solutions of Maxwell equations

We exhibit exact finite energy superluminal solutions of Maxwell equations in vacuum and discuss the physical meaning of these solutions.

Linearly polarized superluminal electromagnetic solitons in cold relativistic plasmas

We investigate a special class of coupled nonlinear superluminal solitons arising from the interaction of an intense linearly polarized electromagnetic pulse with a cold plasma. These modulated envelope structures are obtained as numerical solutions of the classic Akhiezer-Polovin model equations [Sov. Phys. JETP 3, 696 (1956)]. We also present a multiple time scale perturbation analysis in the small amplitude limit that provides a close analytic description of these nonlinear solutions.

by allynh » Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:01 pm
The pulse of light from what we think is a supernova is just a light show, no blast, no shell of expanding gas.

Pretty much.

[jjohnson]

Remember, I'm a mechanic, Jim, not a mathematician... Note the source and that these are math papers and represent mathematical solutions to sets of equations. How do I know or tell if this maps to the real world that I exist in or not? I have no basis yet for an opinion, learned or unlearned, as to whether EM radiation - light in the large sense - can travel superluminally. If it can then it automatically renders the phrase "the speed of light" (and its constant value in vacuum) moot (i,e; debatable or arguable). If light is not limited to the speed of light, then is it limited at all, or to a different speed of light, or is it "it depends..."? Depends on what?

This is a very interesting discussion but I wish you guys would assert or show some basis underlying the concept that superluminal transfer of energy exists to produce light at a distance farther than if some real light had taken its own sweet time getting there, like to the expanding illuminated shell we are seeing. Are we seeing reflected light, or light that is first generated at the shell by some sort of FTL energy wave that beat any real light (if there was any, as one of you asked) emitted by the "supernova".

When mathematicians say "we investigate a special class of coupled nonlinear superluminal solitons arising from..." they don't mean that they physically generate those solitons in their math lab workshop with some powerful magnets and a tank of cold plasma, and watch as the solitons light up the far end of the tank before the simultaneously switched-on $5, 7-LED flashlight beam gets there. They obtain "numerical solutions" ...[and] "also present a multiple time scale perturbation analysis in the small amplitude limit...".

I'm NOT saying that superluminal transmission of something - anything- is impossible; the idea is intriguing, but I have neither someone else's reliable word that it is so, nor any such observations. I'm saying that solving equations is what mathematicians do to investigate what happens, mathematically. It may or may not describe something that is physically possible in the physical universe. There is a lot of useful math that helps understand simple to complex real phenomena very well. Engineering math is useful because we can and do use it in the real world. Black hole and - maybe - superluminal math has not undergone much in the way of engineering or observational verification in the world at large, so I remain pretty suspicious of it. Unconvinced, say. Wary.

If something which can start an entire spherical "shell of light" heading toward our eyes so that the image arrives fully formed, what accounts for our not seeing the photons emanating from the nearest part of the spherical "source" arriving tens or hundreds of years earlier than those coming from the far side of the sphere. which is much farther from us? Widening, as the image builds up, until the limb of the sphere is revealed and then closing or completing the image as the last light from the part of the sphere diametrically opposite shows up here? Why does the expanding but invisible spheroid of invisible superluminal energy suddenly become visible and remain visible as this expanding sphere? Some part of this geometry is off, FTL or not.

[junglelord]

Superluminal is proven via quantum entanglement observations.
The mechanism is simple, quantum resonance.
If the two items are in quantum entanglement and therefore quantum resonance, the two ends are in instant contact. What occurs at the other end depends on the entanglement. Its not a big deal to transmit wireless.
Wheatstone and Tesla state that the speed of propagation of Electrostatic Impulse is pi/2 x c.
You can transmitt information and or energy. The proper receiver, will produce light. Tesla did it.

C is a constant, not a limit, as Eric Dollard points out. Of course the medium being propagated is the Aether.
The effect upon the plasma as the longitudinal aether magneto-dielectric field moves at 291,000 miles a second is the visual of a seemingly impossible event, so the light is not traveling, the aether is, the plasma just enters glow mode due to the magneto-dielectric stress. What we are talking about is the ability to hold charge (capacitance) and to propagate. My recent investigations into capacitance reveal that the dielectric field is the fundamental missing part of electric theory. It makes no sense to speak of scalars without identifying the field in a sense that is practical to modern physics. Therefore aether would be a rotating magneto-dielectric field with a quantum spin of 2.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0445596549#

I suspect the energy wave is electrostatic in form, not EM. I also suspect the results of the wave are a complex set of Electrostatic, EM, Magnetic, Magneto-Dielectric harmonic sets. Cause and effect being seperate charge wave field observations, as I just pointed out.

[Orlando]

Excellent work !

My point is if light is an electro-magnetic phenomena,
then it is not the light that is travelling faster than itself.

The terms used are like saying I heard that sound before it reached my ears?

Or I digested the food before I chewed it.

For example it is the speed of propogation, light is a constant speed not the constant speed for it is something else.

Does that make sense?
The terms SuperLuminal don't paint a clear mental image of the theory, for me anyways.
I see it as electrostatic distributed charge that is faster than light.
Peace
Or