kingkong Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 While reading on the boson of higs discoveries i fell on this science fiction joke or reality http://gizmodo.com/5951184/faster+than+light-travel-may-be-possible and http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/
Something Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 I've always wondered, you get a flashlight and you're flying at 50% the speed of light, then you turn on the flashlight, pointing it right in front of you. Is that light now traveling 150% the speed of light?
kingkong Posted May 21, 2013 Author Posted May 21, 2013 if you are flying at 50% the speed of light than you are more like a light particule you do not need the use of a flashlight you are luminiscent
Strelky Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 I've always wondered, you get a flashlight and you're flying at 50% the speed of light, then you turn on the flashlight, pointing it right in front of you. Is that light now traveling 150% the speed of light?Eh, no, law of relativity says light travels the same speed in every reference frame, no matter its staring velocity. In truth, you cant actually change the speed at which light travels, and the only reason it travels slower in, say, water, is because it bumps into molecules and goes around them, but it does so at the speed of light. Your flashlight doesn't influence the speed of the photons, just the starting positions. Still, I love the idea of Faster than light, (didn't read the article so if this has been said already sorry ) the idea is that negative energy is used to contract space infront of you and expand it behind you, this method would propel you at up to 100x the speed of light without breaking any laws or theories.
kingkong Posted May 21, 2013 Author Posted May 21, 2013 if they take the stargate from atlantis the tv serie wouldn't exist !
Veta Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Faster than light speed is impossible , that can easily be understood by E=mc2 , what they are trying to do is wormholes which also seems impossible because as it would brake space-time .
kingkong Posted May 28, 2013 Author Posted May 28, 2013 it is not the just a probleme of breaking the time-space there is not enogh antimaterial energy in stock and second a wormhole is a singularity about 10raised to -30 cm and about 10 raised to -40 s for shutting on it self by quantum mathematics i think we are not small enough and definitively not so fast but there must be someting more to this that NASA is interrested
Strelky Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Faster than light speed is impossible , that can easily be understood by E=mc2 , what they are trying to do is wormholes which also seems impossible because as it would brake space-time .It truly depends on your reference point, if you travel at the speed of light and someone else travels at the speed of light. Then from your reference point they travel at 2c, and from their reference point you trave at 2c. Plus, the first step in Quantum mechanics is knowing that their is no rule that is followed 100% of the time. You can't say for sure what something is or isn't, only the probability and (to a certain extent) the requirements. The method I used in my first post is definitely possible, but it requires the negative energy mass of a small car (simplified: A shit-ton of a type of power we dont know how to get in large quantities).
prideslayer Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Faster than light speed is impossible , that can easily be understood by E=mc2 , what they are trying to do is wormholes which also seems impossible because as it would brake space-time .They aren't talking about wormholes in either article. The first one is talking about some new theory that.. right now, doesn't mean anything. It suggests that there is another 'place', not part of the universe, where everything is always going faster than the speed of light. It makes no predictions on how (or if) this would impact the observable universe, so there are no experiments that can be performed to prove it right or wrong. Right now, more a flight of fancy than a theory. The second one is talking about nasa working on a detector for Alcubierre drive type systems, a 'warp drive' that doesn't violate any theories, but needs as-yet undiscovered material in order to be built, such as matter with negative mass or negative energy. The math says that if you had (for example) 2 balls, one massing 2kg and one massing -2kg, the pair would accelerate indefinitely along a line connecting them, in the direction of the 2kg object. There is no evidence that such matter exists or can be created. If it can be, and othe species have constructed such devices, nasa is going to try to detect them.
Veta Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 They aren't talking about wormholes in either article. Bending space-time in order to change the location of an item in space is what wormholes are , they aren't magical holes which you enter to hop from one place to the other .
prideslayer Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 They aren't talking about wormholes in either article. Bending space-time in order to change the location of an item in space is what wormholes are , they aren't magical holes which you enter to hop from one place to the other . So everything's a wormhole then? You've just described gravity: curved/bent spacetime. Wormholes are singularites allowing instantaneous (not just superluminal) travel between two points in space, without spending any time doing so. Not just bending space. Neither article is talking about instant travel from one place to another, over any distance.
kingkong Posted May 28, 2013 Author Posted May 28, 2013 do not say it in Geveva researche "CERN" they belive that they created a negatif energy http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/factory/AM-factory00.html and recently some scientiste detected a Higgs boson
prideslayer Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Did you link the wrong thing? Anti-protons are not negative energy, they are 'just' antimatter. Negative energy (specifically, "negative matter-energy density") means a region of space with (on average) less than "nothing" there.
kingkong Posted May 29, 2013 Author Posted May 29, 2013 it might be a mess in my little brain but for me antimatter is negative energy with a negatve mass the opposit of matter not to confuse with exotic matter that suppose to have negative mass and have exotic properties and yet to prouve
prideslayer Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Antimatter has positive energy density. One of the properties of exotic matter, or possible properties, is negative energy -- just like negative mass. So it sounds like antimatter got filed wrong in your brain, yes.
kingkong Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 than in this case i need to revise my lessons as my grey matter became black matter or worse antimatter
AdolfDuck Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 1) Einstein's relativity model has been proven false because of quantum entaglement phenomena. That's one of the reasons why Einstein had problem with quantum theory. 2)Quantum entaglement violates assumption of space/time based, fundamental universe as information(potential information) travels instantly. 3)Light speed does not add (while everything else does). When Einstein represented this assumption as base of his theory he was (at begin) ridiculed. Einstein could not explain causality of constant light speed. 4)Another problem with assumption that this reality is fundamental is apparent reverse causality, which cannot occur (illogical, self-contradicting process).
prideslayer Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Relativity has not been proven "false." It's not perfect, there are things it cannot explain, but for everything above the quantum scale it's been proven *correct* repeatedly in every experiment devised to test it. Quantum entanglement does not violate special or general relativity -- except when the grammar used in the metaphors to describe them introduces contradictions that don't actually exist in the math, which happens in basically every popsci explanation of entanglement.
AdolfDuck Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Relativity has not been proven "false." It's not perfect, there are things it cannot explain, but for everything above the quantum scale it's been proven *correct* repeatedly in every experiment devised to test it. Quantum entanglement does not violate special or general relativity -- except when the grammar used in the metaphors to describe them introduces contradictions that don't actually exist in the math, which happens in basically every popsci explanation of entanglement. What we are dealing here is miscommunication/language problem. 1)There is no such thing like imperfect model - it's illogical statement. There is no such thing like sort of logical equasion. It's logical or not. Einsten's model have been defined and debunked by quantum mechanics. Both relativity and qm have been confirmed experimentally (to some level) yet they cancel/contradict each other. Information is energy and -as relativity tels us- everything is energy. Information could not travel faster than light if Einstain was right. 2)This has nothing to do with scale, or should I say experiments suggest that it has nothing to do with scale. Experiments on molecular scale have been conducted. There is no such thing as "quantum scale" or at least there is no evidence to assume such thing. If you really think that math of relativity and qm does not contradict each other then I wonder how come Einstein could not come up with unified field theory for so many decades. The math of both theories contradicts, I'm pretty sure that Madona of science (Kaku) even did presented it on youtube. Even if math would not contradict it would not render that models do not contradict as both models are use math based on assumptions that second one demands false. Most of unified field theories are based on so many unfalsifiable assumptions (like string theory) that are rather consider pseudo scientific math-bubble than science which is suppose to explain things, not complicate them without answering any questions. rewind to 7.12 to skip popsci bullshit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mjoI7bgXM ---
prideslayer Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Information is energy and -as relativity tels us- everything is energy. Information could not travel faster than light if Einstain was right.Where does information travel faster than light? Not with entanglement -- that's just part of the bad metaphor. There is no such thing as "quantum scale" or at least there is no evidence to assume such thing."quantum scale" is widely understood to mean the scale at which the relativistic description of gravity is no longer correct, for which a quantum theory of gravity is needed. At that scale, relativity does run into problems describing events -- which is why it starts producing singularities. Singularities do not exist in reality, not even in black holes. It's a mathematical term that means "we don't know what happens here." Nothing more. Most of unified field theories are based on so many unfalsifiable assumptions (like string theory) that are rather consider pseudo scientific math-bubble than science which is suppose to explain things, not complicate them without answering any questions.Wholeheartedly agree with you here. Much of the theoretical science of the past 30 or 40 years has been heavy on the theory and very light on the science. The first article linked to by the OP is in that category. "We have an idea that might be true. No way to test it though, sorry."
AdolfDuck Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Information is energy and -as relativity tels us- everything is energy. Information could not travel faster than light if Einstain was right.Where does information travel faster than light? Not with entanglement -- that's just part of the bad metaphor. There is no such thing as "quantum scale" or at least there is no evidence to assume such thing."quantum scale" is widely understood to mean the scale at which the relativistic description of gravity is no longer correct, for which a quantum theory of gravity is needed. At that scale, relativity does run into problems describing events -- which is why it starts producing singularities. Singularities do not exist in reality, not even in black holes. It's a mathematical term that means "we don't know what happens here." Nothing more. Most of unified field theories are based on so many unfalsifiable assumptions (like string theory) that are rather consider pseudo scientific math-bubble than science which is suppose to explain things, not complicate them without answering any questions.Wholeheartedly agree with you here. Much of the theoretical science of the past 30 or 40 years has been heavy on the theory and very light on the science. The first article linked to by the OP is in that category. "We have an idea that might be true. No way to test it though, sorry." It appears to me you did not understood almost anything from what I wrote before. 1)Information travels fasterthen light (instantaneous). It's the fact measured in the most repetitious experiment of modern science. It's not debatable. If you didn't heard about it, it renders that you have no even surface idea why "quantum weirdness" is considered illogical for most scientist who deal with phenomena. Unless you say that there is no such thing like fundamnetal, objective space and time hence the concept (in classical term at least) of speed do not exist but it would be semantical problem that -I don't think- you're about. If you disagree here, there is no point to continue as you reject experimental evidence. 2)As I said there is no such thing like objective, constant "quantum scale" it's just level of observation (data acces) that describes what part of system is defined and what part is potential. Relativity on all scales is incorrect, it is deterministic approximation of probabilistic reality. Newtonian model is still applied in science, that does not mean it's accurate. Singularity/black holes is (just like whole relativity theory) implication of constant C (how odd and brilliant assumption of the Einstein by the way). It has nothing to do with failure of relativistic description of subatomic partilces. As I said quantum "weirdness" has been experimetally proven on molecular level. The reason why quantum phenomena have been detected first on micro not macro scale is because on micro scale data is harder to get - more uncertainty. If you can't see - it's probabilistic. When you sample the data it forces collpase. Interpretation that collpase is forced simple by interaction with light etc has been disproved by type of experiments that also proved reverse causality - even "past" remains probabilistic. Singularities do not exist in reality, not even in black holes. It's a mathematical term that means "we don't know what happens here." Nothing more. You're making the greatest sin of science - assumption without any evidence. I presume that you refuse singularity because of another assumption; that this reality is fundamental - if so then something cannot implode into nothing, as singularity cannot hold any information/energy. That's false assumption and there is strong argument against it - reverse causality that can be only emulated, not fundamental. If you really doubt that information can travel faster (or should I say outside of space and time) you should now that there have been already made simple quantum computers that can made calculations without limitations of linear time. Second vid I posted In my previous post represents theory that is testable and based on only one assumption, it also allows to derive qm and constant light speed out of it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/05/16/technology-d-wave-quantum-computer.html http://gizmodo.com/quantum-computer-kicks-pc-ass-in-first-ever-head-to-hea-499681531
prideslayer Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 It appears to me you did not understood almost anything from what I wrote before.I understand what you wrote -- you are just wrong. 1)Information travels fasterthen light (instantaneous).No, it doesn't. Sometimes it appears to, but that's been proven to be an error in interpretation of the results, every time. 2)As I said there is no such thing like objective, constant "quantum scale" it's just level of observation (data acces) that describes what part of system is defined and what part is potential. Relativity on all scales is incorrect, it is deterministic approximation of probabilistic reality. Newtonian model is still applied in science, that does not mean it's accurate.Correct and accurate do not mean the same thing. That said, there is certainly an objective quantum scale -- it's the scale at which quantum effects dominate spacetime. On larger scales, relativity (gravity) dominates. The schism between SR and QM exists here, and entirely here -- hence the search for a quantum theory of gravity to unify the two. Singularities do not exist in reality, not even in black holes. It's a mathematical term that means "we don't know what happens here." Nothing more. You're making the greatest sin of science - assumption without any evidence. I presume that you refuse singularity I "refuse singularity" because the word doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of cosmology, the word means simply an area where the mathematics used to describe the region no longer work or make sense. So, we search for new theories, with new mathematics, to describe that region of spacetime better while explaining the rest at least as well as the current theory. This is the nature of science.
AdolfDuck Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 It appears to me you did not understood almost anything from what I wrote before.I understand what you wrote -- you are just wrong. 1)Information travels fasterthen light (instantaneous).No, it doesn't. Sometimes it appears to, but that's been proven to be an error in interpretation of the results, every time. 2)As I said there is no such thing like objective, constant "quantum scale" it's just level of observation (data acces) that describes what part of system is defined and what part is potential. Relativity on all scales is incorrect, it is deterministic approximation of probabilistic reality. Newtonian model is still applied in science, that does not mean it's accurate.Correct and accurate do not mean the same thing. That said, there is certainly an objective quantum scale -- it's the scale at which quantum effects dominate spacetime. On larger scales, relativity (gravity) dominates. The schism between SR and QM exists here, and entirely here -- hence the search for a quantum theory of gravity to unify the two. Singularities do not exist in reality, not even in black holes. It's a mathematical term that means "we don't know what happens here." Nothing more. You're making the greatest sin of science - assumption without any evidence. I presume that you refuse singularity I "refuse singularity" because the word doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of cosmology, the word means simply an area where the mathematics used to describe the region no longer work or make sense. So, we search for new theories, with new mathematics, to describe that region of spacetime better while explaining the rest at least as well as the current theory. This is the nature of science. I understand what you wrote -- you are just wrong. Sometimes it appears to, but that's been proven to be an error in interpretation of the results, every time. You keep representing false opinion without giving any argument/experimental evidence; if you have no information about something you should refrain from stating uneducated opinion, otherwise you just add confusion - which is unscientific. There is no evidence that could support your claim and strong evidence against it. Einstein hated faster than light speed data transfer, just like of majority of scientists that cling to false assumption of objective, fundamental reality and find qm illogical. Further experiments only confirmed entaglement. (I you have your own theory I'm curious though, fell free to present it) Here is more from primadonna of science=) For the record there is no such thing like "random" information; it's just potential information. Randomness is mathematical concept that contradicts causality. Language problem again. Correct and accurate do not mean the same thing. That said, there is certainly an objective quantum scale -- it's the scale at which quantum effects dominate spacetime. On larger scales, relativity (gravity) dominates. The schism between SR and QM exists here, and entirely here -- hence the search for a quantum theory of gravity to unify the two. I'm sorry but it must be language problem. For me accurate means =, just like correct. It means it's perfectly correct. Not perfectly correct = false (which can be approximately correct though). As I said there is no scale where qm do not exist, it's just because uncertainty level is small, and you can't see subatomic particles without equipment it appears to be more significant on small scales. There is no dominant/submissive elements of nature laws, that's just unapriopriate description. In some experiments some approximations are just good enough. I "refuse singularity" because the word doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of cosmology, the word means simply an area where the mathematics used to describe the region no longer work or make sense. So, we search for new theories, with new mathematics, to describe that region of spacetime better while explaining the rest at least as well as the current theory. This is the nature of science. Singularity is undebatable mathematical concept, and my undestanding can't be wrong. Singularity is a point. In continous, objective reality point is just abstract idea as you can go smaller in infinity. But as quantum mechanics tell us, our reality is not continous; it's digital and as such singularity can practically exist. If our reality is digital -> it's emulated, not fundamental, hence attempt to build model only on emulation will always fail. That's why Einstein and others could not develop unified field theory. Science will not progress untill accept uncomfortable facts and reject false assumptions. One more thing - there is no "new mathematics" - mathematics means logical operations that we try to become familiar with, we don't invent mathematics - we just discover it. If our mathematics is "wrong" it means that it's illogical hence not really mathematics =).
Tefnacht Posted June 3, 2013 Posted June 3, 2013 Oh, look. R755 is back. Unless scientists found a way to reliably collapse the superposition of entangled particles into a predetermined eigenstate, there is no transfer of usable information possible through entanglement. To my knowledge, this has not been done yet. Although I hope I am wrong. It would be awesome to have FTL communication A huge problem with most pop-science analogies that describe entanglement, like “wiggling the electron” used by Michio Kaku, is that they give the wrong idea about entanglement. We cannot “wiggle the electron.” We observe it and thereby collapse the wave function. The result is random, either “up” or “down” with a 50/50 chance. The weird thing with entangled particles is, by observing one, we also destroy the superposition of the other. If I measure particle A and see it spinning “up”, measuring particle B will always show a “down” spin. However, there is no useful information transported. If I do not know anything about particle A and do my measurement on particle B, I have no way of knowing whether it was my own measurement that collapsed the wave function or if it was already collapsed by someone else performing a earlier measurement on particle A. The probability for both cases is the same. It is not Morse code. Imagine trying to send a message with a Morse machine, where pressing the button randomly sends out a beep or doesn't. You can't. While both sender and receiver hear the same random beeps, instantaneous over any distance, they still only hear random beeps.
Monsto Brukes Posted June 3, 2013 Posted June 3, 2013 Need moar tits in this thread. Sorry, I've had several beeeers and would normally enjoy this convo . . . but at the moment that's what was on my mind. Time to wake up the wiff!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.