keryu寫到:
　

　　而且依照相對論，沒有比光速還要快的，所以不可能會出現像在車上丟球的那種兩倍光速的事情出來的。

[keryu 在 2005-10-12 09:25 PM 作了最後編輯]

rakish寫到:
什麼光阿相對論阿..
學數學的完全有看無懂...
不過1+1=2 <---這個就看的懂了
在一些情況下1+1未必=2
{0,1} 1+1=0

yiumingl99寫到:
please think it simple
for example:
2 car start at the same time, they both speed at 180 miles/hour
so for you, you will see no car at your front, but you can see your car next to you and he said "hi" to you

so for your case,
I think you can see your car light ball is "lighting"
but the road is still "dark"
then you may think: "Ghost did it?"
and said "HELP~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

keryu寫到:
而且依照相對論，沒有比光速還要快的，所以不可能會出現像在車上丟球的那種兩倍光速的事情出來的。

lovelegend寫到:

引用:

a43song寫到:
因為還不能確定光的性質吧?

光的性質早已確定 (百多年前還有爭拗, 但不是現在了), 要不然也不會有這麼多光學儀器...

引用:

keryu寫到:
而且依照相對論，沒有比光速還要快的，所以不可能會出現像在車上丟球的那種兩倍光速的事情出來的。

相對論很舊的了, 而且這就是科學家說的 "大膽假設, 小心求證", 假設並不一定準的, 愛因斯坦也未必不會錯, 最近天文學便發現在星球爆炸 (忘了是恆星還是什麼星) 時星球碎片便以光速三四倍的飛行...

Observer寫到:

引用:

lovelegend寫到:

引用:

a43song寫到:
因為還不能確定光的性質吧?

光的性質早已確定 (百多年前還有爭拗, 但不是現在了), 要不然也不會有這麼多光學儀器...

引用:

keryu寫到:
而且依照相對論，沒有比光速還要快的，所以不可能會出現像在車上丟球的那種兩倍光速的事情出來的。

相對論很舊的了, 而且這就是科學家說的 "大膽假設, 小心求證", 假設並不一定準的, 愛因斯坦也未必不會錯, 最近天文學便發現在星球爆炸 (忘了是恆星還是什麼星) 時星球碎片便以光速三四倍的飛行...

請提出論點出處

shiz99寫到:

咪兔~咪兔~我也要看看
眾所周知光同時具有波和粒子的特性這是未解的謎
竟然有人說光的性質早已確定
這真要好好讀讀...

至於碎片以光速三四倍的飛行...這..更要看看了

MU寫到:

引用:

rakish寫到:
什麼光阿相對論阿..
學數學的完全有看無懂...
不過1+1=2 <---這個就看的懂了
在一些情況下1+1未必=2
{0,1} 1+1=0

1+1=0只能用在數學上，而在實質上卻違反了物質不滅定律.....

In effect, all Einstein did was to apply the equation E=hv to the electromagnetic radiation, instead of to the little oscillators inside the atom. He said that light is not a continuous wave, as scientists had thought for a hundred years, but instead comes in definite packets, or quanta. All the light of a particular frequency v, which means of a particular color, comes in packets that have the same energy E. Every time one of these light quanta hits an electron, it gives it the same amount of energy and therefore the same velocity. More intense light simply means that there are more light quanta (now we call them photons) that all have the same energy, but changing the color of the light changes its frequency, and so changes the amount of energy that is carried by each photon.

In some respects a photon acts as a particle, for instance when registered by the light sensitive device in a camera. In other respects, a photon acts like a wave, as when passing through the optics in a camera. According to the so-called wave-particle duality in quantum physics, it is natural for the photon to display either aspect of its nature, according to the circumstances

lovelegend寫到:
我應該修正我的說話, 光並不是 wave 也不是粒子, 而是量子...
論點出處是愛因斯坦在 1905 年 Annalen der Physik (一本科學雜誌)上發表的三大論文之一 "On a heuristic viewpoint concerning the production and transformation of light" (愛因斯坦亦是憑這篇論文而得到 1921 年的諾貝爾物理獎的)...

當然我沒有看過那篇論文 , 我看的是一本介紹 Quantum Physics 的書, John Gribbin 的 In Search of Schrödinger's Cat - Quantum Physics and Reality:

而書中說到愛因斯坦這篇論文的部份是在第 47 頁:

In effect, all Einstein did was to apply the equation E=hv to the electromagnetic radiation, instead of to the little oscillators inside the atom. He said that light is not a continuous wave, as scientists had thought for a hundred years, but instead comes in definite packets, or quanta. All the light of a particular frequency v, which means of a particular color, comes in packets that have the same energy E. Every time one of these light quanta hits an electron, it gives it the same amount of energy and therefore the same velocity. More intense light simply means that there are more light quanta (now we call them photons) that all have the same energy, but changing the color of the light changes its frequency, and so changes the amount of energy that is carried by each photon.

If one were to ask the question "What is light, really?" there can be no simple answer. There is no familiar object or macroscopic modle to employ as an analogy. But understanding need not be based on analogy. A consistent and unambiguous theoretcial explanation of all optical phenomena is furnished jointly by Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the quantum theory.

(題外話一下, 這本書亦提到了愛因斯坦和 Erwin Schrödinger 在量子物理學上的爭拗 (所以書名也用到了 Schrödinger's cat 假說), Schrödinger 說 "Nothing is real unless it is observed", 但愛因斯坦很不以為然, 並說 "God does not play dice"... 這個爭拗一直不能解決, 直到 1982 年 University of Paris-South 進行了一些實驗, 最終證實 Schrödinger 是對的...
P.S. 其實 Schrödinger 也很不太能接受自己的理論, 所以他說過一句話: "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it" )

kokocv寫到:
這幾天突然想到這個問題，如果一部車以光速的速度來前進的話，
那麼前面的大燈可不可以照出光來了？？
如果可以照出光來的話，不就"超光速"了嗎？？
到底車子的大燈可不可以照出光了呢？？