Special Relativity. Lifetime.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Because if frequency (Hertz) was velocity then every microchip would have a lot of it. Most operate at millions to billions of Hertz. Imagine that every microchip in your computer spontaneously turned into a meteor. That's essentially what you're proposing.

The analogy doesn't quiet make sense.

But it should be noted that I'm not proposing anything, merely questioning the common language that exists between the two measures. We can talk about how fast a heart beats and how fast a car drives.

You're conflating frequency with velocity.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

You're conflating frequency with velocity.

Boru

I don't think I am; otherwise I wouldn't have asked to compare them. They both appear to measure the amount of something over a specified time. Thus why the adjectives fast and slow can be used to describe both. My question, more properly, asks if both types of fastness have a function in SR.

Perhaps I should have initially asked if Hz functions as a type of "fastness" instead of a type of velocity; either way the vocabulary seems limited to properly state the question.

[Alex K]

Not being a physicist, does the measurement of hertz qualify as a type of velocity (or speed)? Because if it does then the mind does have a velocity. Moreover, Francis Crick and his colleague proposed that neurons firing synchronously at about 40Hz specifically is what gives consciousness it's cohesion.

Not really. There is in principle no upper limit to frequency like there is for velocity, except that frequencies with periods shorter than Planck time are maybe impossible) but this limit does not derive from special relativity.

The physical concept frequency is related to more closely is actually energy. By virtue of the Schrödinger equation the two are basically the same. This way, frequency (of the quantum wave function) and velocity are related indirectly: larger velocity leads to larger kinetic energy leads to higher wave function frequency. But it's not a one-to-one correspondance.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Not really. There is in principle no upper limit to frequency like there is for velocity, except that frequencies with periods shorter than Planck time are maybe impossible) but this limit does not derive from special relativity.

The physical concept frequency is related to more closely is actually energy. By virtue of the Schrödinger equation the two are basically the same.

The term frequency, seems to me, applicable to very different types of phenomenon. The frequency of a neuron is similar to the pulsation of a heart; they are individual entities with a limit to how fast pulsations can be produced. But the frequency of light or sound seems different, it appears continuous or connected; it makes more sense to talk about "how many" as opposed to "how fast" when it comes to these waves. (Assuming an increase in wave frequency corresponds to more waves fitting into the same space, not waves traveling faster through that space).

So I think the lack of an upper limit, or its relatedness to energy, depends on what frequency is in reference to.

[Alex K]

Not really. There is in principle no upper limit to frequency like there is for velocity, except that frequencies with periods shorter than Planck time are maybe impossible) but this limit does not derive from special relativity.

The physical concept frequency is related to more closely is actually energy. By virtue of the Schrödinger equation the two are basically the same.

The term frequency, seems to me, applicable to very different types of phenomenon. The frequency of a neuron is similar to the pulsation of a heart; they are individual entities with a limit to how fast pulsations can be produced. But the frequency of light seems different, it appears continuous or connected; it makes more sense to talk about "how many" as opposed to "how fast" when it comes to these waves. (I'm assuming an increase in the frequency of light corresponds to more waves fitting into the same space, not the same number traveling faster through that space).

So I think the lack of an upper limit, or its relatedness to energy, depends on what frequency is in reference to.

Hm, I don't know. The concept of frequency is really quite fundamental in physics and basically relates any physical process and the frequencies which occur in them, to energy states.
A frequency in the sense physics uses it refers to harmonic sine waves. Any other periodic change can in this sense be viewed as a combination of various harmonic oscillations with different frequencies on top of each other - google Fourier decomposition. The lowest of these frequencies determines the time it takes to complete a cycle, what one would colloquially call the frequency.

[John 6IX Breezy]

A frequency in the sense physics uses it refers to harmonic sine waves. Any other periodic change can in this sense be viewed as a combination of various harmonic oscillations with different frequencies on top of each other - google Fourier decomposition. The lowest of these frequencies determines the time it takes to complete a cycle, what one would colloquially call the frequency.

Wouldn't sine waves only be applicable to light? Perhaps I'm confusing music theory with physics, but basic sound waves can come in square waves, saw waves, etc. I don't know if these waveforms have a Fourier decomposition.

I thought frequency was more about how many cycles in a given time frame, not how much time to complete a cycle. Perhaps the difference is arbitrary however.

[Alex K]

A frequency in the sense physics uses it refers to harmonic sine waves. Any other periodic change can in this sense be viewed as a combination of various harmonic oscillations with different frequencies on top of each other - google Fourier decomposition. The lowest of these frequencies determines the time it takes to complete a cycle, what one would colloquially call the frequency.

Wouldn't sine waves only be applicable to light? Perhaps I'm confusing music theory with physics, but basic sound waves can come in square waves, saw waves, etc. I don't know if these waveforms have a Fourier decomposition.

I thought frequency was more about how many cycles in a given time frame, not how much time to complete a cycle. Perhaps the difference is arbitrary however.

Nah, thanks to quantum theory, there is no fundamental difference between light and other particles, it's applicable universally. The frequency and time for a cycle are just the reciprocal of each other: 5 Hz means 1/5th of a second etc.

[LastPoet]

To add to what Alex said, some math foundations, trigonometry, for starters would be good Breezy. But I don't believe in that you want to learn, you just want to use philosophical rethoric (way easier to do than math or physics) to push your selfish beliefs. While I don't have any faith in gods, I do for people, that I suppose to be real. My faith in you is slim, I have to say.

[John 6IX Breezy]

To add to what Alex said, some math foundations, trigonometry, for starters would be good Breezy. But I don't believe in that you want to learn, you just want to use philosophical rethoric (way easier to do than math or physics) to push your selfish beliefs. While I don't have any faith in gods, I do for people, that I suppose to be real. My faith in you is slim, I have to say.

I'm not sure how frequency and velocity correlates with such beliefs; this thread doesn't even represent any of mine. I just find the idea of the mind having a speed interesting and worth exploring.

[Alex K]

By the way, Sawtooth and square sound waves can also be decomposed into sine waves via Fourier transforms, but anything like that with a discontinuous jump needs an infinite number of higher frequencies to reproduce it. In reality, all square waves and sawtooth waves are only approximate, and can therefore be built from a finite number of frequqncies (your electronics don't have infinite bandwidth for a start.