Faster Than Light Travel

[apoppin]

in theory .. please! not too close to the planet!!
- i did see the two related threads and they seemed too specific to post in
[i hope you agree - or let it die or lock it; i'm "from" video]

OK, we had a discussion in P&N and traditional quantum physics says it is *impossible*

is it? Did Einstein really rule it out?

Now this IS sloppy, and i did a little "quick research" BUT i'd love to have the real Geek's opinions
[that's a compliment and my first post here, i think]

We already have exceeded the speed of light, i think. What are photons? .. they can travel faster than light

Here are a few thing to consider

First the theories .. mostly classical

here is the *classic response* to which you refer:
http://www.livescience.com/mys...atter_light_speed.html

But astrophysicists have recently discovered gas and dust in two distant exploding stars moving at 99.9997 percent of the speed of light?about 2,000 mph too slow to make the cut.

When a super-massive star explodes, sometimes called a hypernova, it jettisons gas and dust into space with astonishing energy, in effect causing it to outshine most objects in the nearby universe. In the recently discovered explosions, about 200 Earth?s worth of material, in the form of stellar gas and dust, was propelled near the light-speed brink for a few moments.

Such a large amount of matter moving so quickly may seem extremely close to light speed , but the energy required to move even a little faster is nearly infinite. To understand this, Einstein?s famous E=mc2 equation is useful. But there's a more complex version, however, which accounts for velocity (v):

E=?mc2 where ?=1/(v 1-v2/c2)
If the equation looks confusing, here?s a summary: The faster an object moves, an exponentially larger amount of energy is needed to speed it up, which is why travelling at light speed requires an infinite?and impossible?amount of energy.

This is near-light speeds of matter observed using doppler effect around the black hole

That was '04 .. they are following up:
Gamma Ray bursts [particulate

Potential study [of course never depend on a wiki - follow the links back to the studies if you have an appetite for math]:

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

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

gravitational interaction is mediated by deformation of space-time geometry. Matter warps the geometry of space-time and these effects are, as with electric and magnetic fields, propagated at the speed of light. Thus, in the presence of matter, space-time becomes non-Euclidean, resolving the apparent conflict between Newton's proof of the conservation of angular momentum and Einstein's theory of special relativity. Mach's question regarding the bulging of rotating bodies is resolved because local space-time geometry is informing a rotating body about the rest of the universe. In Newton's theory of motion, space acts on objects, but is not acted upon. In Einstein's theory of motion, matter acts upon space-time geometry, deforming it, and space-time geometry acts upon matter

EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable conditions (referred to as locality, realism, counter factual definiteness, and completeness), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor ? as it turns out ? does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions.

there is a lot to consider besides "traditional"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...s_of_quantum_mechanics

and don't forget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

or "spin", quantum superposition along with its interference peaks from an electron wave persisting at all scales without a mechanism for removing them; philosophical or physical? and there is now an uncertainty principle.
-there is also the 'no cloning theorem'

i forgot where i got this: []

The state of one system can be entangled with the state of another system. For instance, one can use the Controlled NOT gate and the Walsh-Hadamard gate to entangle two qubits. This is not cloning. No well-defined state can be attributed to a subsystem of an entangled state. Cloning is a process whose end result is a separable state with identical factors.

HOWEVER .. the proof is tenuous at best and Similarly, cloning would violate the no teleportation theorem. And of course the EPR thought experiment need to be considered, i think.

What if Superluminal motion is real?
- just because most of earth's scientists dismiss it

And of course the concept of a "super shock wave" a type of intense propagating disturbance would provide the theoretical energy. We already know particles accelerated beyond the speed of light in a refractive medium create visible shock effects, a phenomenon known as Cherenkov radiation.

there are literally hundred of references and theories

and my favorite ..

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

One curious effect is that, unlike ordinary particles, the speed of a tachyon increases as its energy decreases. (For ordinary bradyonic matter, E increases with increasing velocity, becoming arbitrarily large as v approaches c, the speed of light.) Therefore, just as bradyons are forbidden to break the light-speed barrier, so too are tachyons forbidden from slowing down to below c, since to reach the barrier from either above or below requires infinite energy.

Quantizing tachyons shows that they must be spinless particles which obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, i,e. tachyons are scalar fermions, a combination which is not permitted for ordinary particles.[3] They also must be created and annihilated in pairs.

The existence of such particles would pose intriguing problems in modern physics. For example, taking the formalisms of electromagnetic radiation and supposing a tachyon had an electric charge?as there is no reason to suppose a priori that tachyons must be either neutral or charged?then a charged tachyon must lose energy as Cherenkov radiation?just as ordinary charged particles do when they exceed the local speed of light in a medium. A charged tachyon traveling in a vacuum therefore undergoes a constant proper time acceleration and, by necessity, its worldline forms a hyperbola in space-time. However, as we have seen, reducing a tachyon's energy increases its speed, so that the single hyperbola formed is of two oppositely charged tachyons with opposite momenta (same magnitude, opposite sign) which annihilate each other when they simultaneously reach infinite velocity at the same place in space. (At infinite velocity the two tachyons have no energy each and finite momentum of opposite direction, so no conservation laws are violated in their mutual annihilation. The time of annihilation is frame dependent.) Even an electrically neutral tachyon would be expected to lose energy via gravitational Cherenkov radiation, since it has a gravitational mass, and therefore increase in velocity as it travels, as described above.

Please don't get me started on wormholes, the Alcubierre metric, or Quantum gravity; and the Scharnhorst effect may be applicable. ANd on top of that, you better be prepared to discuss Vacuum energy and the Casimir effect. Finally you need to take into consideration the Chronology protection conjecture .. for starters.
Do-able, i'd say - NOTHING is "impossible"

I'd love to have Einstein back at least for the math

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Photons are light. They are also massless. That explains why they can go at c.

None of your links say that a particle is going at c, and at the same time, if cosmic events exponentially stronger cannot cause mass to go at c, how are we going to get a particle to go at c?

We all know things can go close to the speed of light, but cannot hit it.

Anything that CAN go at/faster than c is not able to transmit any information, thus is practically useless.

 

[Born2bwire]

Faster than light travel can be easily obtained. Split a grape down longitudinally leaving a small piece of skin intact at the bottom. Fold the grape back so that the two portions lie flat, they should be held together by the scrap of skin. Place this in a microwave and place a small mound of non-dairy creamer on the cut portions of the grape. Upon microwaving, a plasma will form between the grape halves in the vicinity of the non-dairy creamer. At this point an energy arises as the non-dairy creamer undergoes fusion, resulting in a gravity well that can allow momentary faster than light travel of particles around the gravity well. You need to remember that in addition to the Scharnhorst effect, it's sister effect, the Gneisenau Theory, can be used to compensate. And let's be honest, modern science has yet to fully explain non-dairy creamer so there's no telling what kind of shit goes down when you mess with it.

 

[apoppin]

but if you breathe it in it is toxic .. we know that .. and the potential mutations are usually not beneficial

i just wondered what are the *current state* of the theories?
--i guess my key question is: .. is faster than light travel "more possible" or "less possible" than thought previously
-it was thought *impossible* thru the 80s by almost any serious .. anyone

Did anyone get close to unifying Einstein's theories?
- or are they about to be adjusted?

thanks, tenshodo13, for showing up here!

i hope you are not looking to "discredit me" . this isn't P&N .. i have NOT been really keeping up as i am busy for years with other projects; i am mostly going by what i knew when i left off looking at it

NOW .. i am asking IF it is "impossible"

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I'd like to start by stating that I'm an astrophysics major (only in my second year) and I find your diatribe against scientists in the P&N thread offensive and uncalled for. Your hatred of "ignorant savages playing with test tubes" shows an arrogance and an ignorance of how science works. I'm only bothering to respond to this thread on the off-chance that anyone here might actually take you seriously.

Originally posted by: apoppin
OK, we had a discussion in P&N and traditional quantum physics says it is *impossible*

is it? Did Einstein really rule it out?

Now this IS sloppy, and i did a little "quick research" BUT i'd love to have the real Geek's opinions
[that's a compliment and my first post here, i think]

We already have exceeded the speed of light, i think. What are photons? .. they can travel faster than light

Quantum physics imposes no boundaries on the velocity of particles - it was Einstein's work in relativity that showed a "cosmic speed limit" and this has been well tested and established as a fact. I can show you the simple mathematics but it's unreasonable that I should be able to give you a complete understanding of relativity in a single post. Without going through the derivations, Einstein showed that if we make the (reasonable and well-tested) assumption that light travels at the same velocity in all inertial frames of reference, Newton's second law (F = ma) can be re-written as
F = m * a
where m undergoes the transformation m = m(sub o)/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) where m(sub o) is the rest mass of the particle
If you have a basic understanding of algebra you should be able to see that as v (velocity) approaches c (speed of light) the denominator of that equation approaches 0 and the mass approaches infinity. This means that to accelerate a particle to the speed of light an infinit amount of force needs to be applied, which is obviously impossible.

FYI, photons DO NOT travel faster than light, they travel at the speed of light (photons are light packets so this should be obvious. Light travels at light speed). In fact any massless particle travels at c.

Originally posted by: apoppin
Here are a few thing to consider

First the theories .. mostly classical

here is the *classic response* to which you refer:
http://www.livescience.com/mys...atter_light_speed.html


This is near-light speeds of matter observed using doppler effect around the black hole

That was '04 .. they are following up:
Gamma Ray bursts [particulate

There is a major difference between traveling near light speed and at or above light speed.

Originally posted by: apoppin
And of course the concept of a "super shock wave" a type of intense propagating disturbance would provide the theoretical energy. We already know particles accelerated beyond the speed of light in a refractive medium create visible shock effects, a phenomenon known as Cherenkov radiation.

there are literally hundred of references and theories

This is in fact a real phenomenon but it's important to understand the subtle difference between exceeding light speed in a medium and exceeding c in a vacuum. Einstein's equations show that the "cosmic speed limit" applies in all media. In other words, the maximum speed that any massive object can travel in any medium is 300,000 km/s. Any interesting property of light propagation through a refractive medium is that light travels slower than c. It's important to understand that each photon of light in the medium is actually traveling at c, and the cause of the reduction in velocity of propagation of light is caused by the photons interacting with the medium.

Say you fire a laser through a glass beaker of water. Picture one single photon traveling through the water. Every now and again it will collide with a water molecule, be absorbed and then re-emitted spontaneously. This reaction takes a small amount of time. On average, each of the photons will go through a certain number of absorption-emission events, leading to a slower-than-c propagation through the medium.

Now imagine that you fire a beam of weakly-interacting particles through the medium. These particles will move through the water with far fewer interactions. You can see that if you were to fire this beam through at 99.99c it is conceivable that these particles would emerge from the other side of the beaker before the light does, but none of them have moved faster than c.

Originally posted by: apoppinand my favorite ..

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

The existence of Tachyons is highly speculative and there is no good reason to believe that they exist. They are predicted by some wacky versions of M-theory with no evidence in their favour.

However, even if they do exist, there is no way for anything traveling slower than c to interact with them in any way. There is no reason to believe that Tachyons should make faster-than-c travel possible.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I'd like to start by stating that I'm an astrophysics major (only in my second year) and I find your diatribe against scientists in the P&N thread offensive and uncalled for. Your hatred of "ignorant savages playing with test tubes" shows an arrogance and an ignorance of how science works. I'm only bothering to respond to this thread on the off-chance that anyone here might actually take you seriously.

Originally posted by: apoppin
OK, we had a discussion in P&N and traditional quantum physics says it is *impossible*

is it? Did Einstein really rule it out?

Now this IS sloppy, and i did a little "quick research" BUT i'd love to have the real Geek's opinions
[that's a compliment and my first post here, i think]

We already have exceeded the speed of light, i think. What are photons? .. they can travel faster than light

Quantum physics imposes no boundaries on the velocity of particles - it was Einstein's work in relativity that showed a "cosmic speed limit" and this has been well tested and established as a fact. I can show you the simple mathematics but it's unreasonable that I should be able to give you a complete understanding of relativity in a single post. Without going through the derivations, Einstein showed that if we make the (reasonable and well-tested) assumption that light travels at the same velocity in all inertial frames of reference, Newton's second law (F = ma) can be re-written as
F = m * a
where m undergoes the transformation m = m(sub o)/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) where m(sub o) is the rest mass of the particle
If you have a basic understanding of algebra you should be able to see that as v (velocity) approaches c (speed of light) the denominator of that equation approaches 0 and the mass approaches infinity. This means that to accelerate a particle to the speed of light an infinit amount of force needs to be applied, which is obviously impossible.

FYI, photons DO NOT travel faster than light, they travel at the speed of light (photons are light packets so this should be obvious. Light travels at light speed). In fact any massless particle travels at c.

Originally posted by: apoppin
Here are a few thing to consider

First the theories .. mostly classical

here is the *classic response* to which you refer:
http://www.livescience.com/mys...atter_light_speed.html


This is near-light speeds of matter observed using doppler effect around the black hole

That was '04 .. they are following up:
Gamma Ray bursts [particulate

There is a major difference between traveling near light speed and at or above light speed.

Originally posted by: apoppin
And of course the concept of a "super shock wave" a type of intense propagating disturbance would provide the theoretical energy. We already know particles accelerated beyond the speed of light in a refractive medium create visible shock effects, a phenomenon known as Cherenkov radiation.

there are literally hundred of references and theories

This is in fact a real phenomenon but it's important to understand the subtle difference between exceeding light speed in a medium and exceed c in a vacuum. Einstein's equations show that the "cosmic speed limit" applies in all media. In other words, the maximum speed that any massive object can travel in any medium is 300,000 km/s. Any interesting property of light propagation through a refractive medium is that light travels slower than c. It's important to understand that each photon of light in the medium is actually traveling at c, and the cause of the reduction in velocity of propagation of light is caused by the photons interacting with the medium.

Say you fire a laser through a glass beaker of water. Picture one single photon traveling through the water. Every now and again it will collide with a water molecule, be absorbed and then re-emitted spontaneously. This reaction takes a small amount of time. On average, each of the photons will go through a certain number of absorption-emission events, leading to a slower-than-c propagation through the medium.

Now imagine that you fire a beam of weakly-interacting particles through the medium. These particles will move through the water with far fewer interactions. You can see that if you were to fire this beam through at 99.99c it is conceivable that these particles would emerge from the other side of the beaker before the light does, but none of them have moved faster than c.

and *i'd* like to say let's leave the debating in P&N .. and i don't care to be followed around from thread to thread; i also post in Video and i review HW/SW there for the guys. MY "controversy" is *reserved now* for P&N [as it is also entertainment and a bit of "fun" imo]

THIS THREAD is to look at the possibilities of faster than light travel .. i have only STARTED the discussion here

there is also a "variable speed" light theory where photons DO travel faster

and i know the subtle differences .. i am just asking for you to explain them
.. and for a DISCUSSION

my personal feeling about "Science" is to be left out of HT as there is a 'NO flames' rule here - i will not post anything negative here about it

please .. discuss freely .. i will not flame you here
.. otoh, if you care to step outside .. and into P&N - i will not hesitate to debate you for an instant; any way you like


EDIT:


as far as i am concerned this is an OPEN discussion

. . . the Alcubierre metric, or Quantum gravity; and the Scharnhorst effect may be applicable. And on top of that, you better be prepared to discuss Vacuum energy and the Casimir effect. Finally you need to take into consideration the Chronology protection conjecture . . .

anything goes .. except flames

where are we at?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: apoppin
and *i'd* like to say let's leave the debating in P&N .. and i don't care to be followed around from thread to thread

THIS THREAD is to look at the possibilities of faster than light travel .. i have only STARTED the discussion here

there is also a "variable speed" light theory where photons DO travel faster

and i know the subtle differences .. i am just asking for you to explain them
.. and for a DISCUSSION

my personal feeling about "Science" is to be left out of HT as there is a NO flames rule here - i will not post anything here about it

please .. discuss freely .. i will not flame you here
.. otoh, if you care to step outside .. and into P&N i will not hesitate to debate you for an instant

Fair enough. I made an effort to explain the phenomena in my post and my hope is that you will read it. If you don't understand it (I fully admit I'm very bad at explaining these things) I'm more than willing to go into more detail, just let me know.

I'd rather not talk about the variable light speed theories for two reason. The first is that they are extremely fringe and on the border of being unscientific and the second is that I don't know very much about them and I'm always uncomfortable debating about topics I'm not familiar with. However this relativity stuff is my bread and butter, so to speak, and I'm always willing to help a relativity denier understand on the condition that they will make an effort.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: apoppin
and *i'd* like to say let's leave the debating in P&N .. and i don't care to be followed around from thread to thread

THIS THREAD is to look at the possibilities of faster than light travel .. i have only STARTED the discussion here

there is also a "variable speed" light theory where photons DO travel faster

and i know the subtle differences .. i am just asking for you to explain them
.. and for a DISCUSSION

my personal feeling about "Science" is to be left out of HT as there is a NO flames rule here - i will not post anything here about it

please .. discuss freely .. i will not flame you here
.. otoh, if you care to step outside .. and into P&N i will not hesitate to debate you for an instant

Fair enough. I made an effort to explain the phenomena in my post and my hope is that you will read it. If you don't understand it (I fully admit I'm very bad at explaining these things) I'm more than willing to go into more detail, just let me know.

I'd rather not talk about the variable light speed theories for two reason. The first is that they are extremely fringe and on the border of being unscientific and the second is that I don't know very much about them and I'm always uncomfortable debating about topics I'm not familiar with. However this relativity stuff is my bread and butter, so to speak, and I'm always willing to help a relativity denier understand on the condition that they will make an effort.

thank-you very much! .. i am actually "Mark" .. not "apoppin" who was originally reserved for Video flaming but he is now only deployed in P&N

i DO understand it; a very nice analogy and one commonly used to explain it .. it has just been a LONG time for me and i left off ..

also it takes me some time to edit .. so i will post it here again:

. . the Alcubierre metric, or Quantum gravity; and the Scharnhorst effect may be applicable. And on top of that, you better be prepared to discuss Vacuum energy and the Casimir effect. Finally you need to take into consideration the Chronology protection conjecture . . .


anything goes .. except flames

now i DO want to discuss "Variable" theories because they are fringe .. yet "plausible" .. and it is better to LEARN then to be comfortable with what you know and easily explain. Einstein was never comfortable.

.. at least that has been my own rule to live by, but then in real-life i guess i would be an "adventurer"

and this sounds interesting

 

[BFG10K]

FYI, photons DO NOT travel faster than light, they travel at the speed of light (photons are light packets so this should be obvious. Light travels at light speed). In fact any massless particle travels at c.

Just curious, how do they explain light being affected by gravity (e.g. black holes) if it has no mass?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

FYI, photons DO NOT travel faster than light, they travel at the speed of light (photons are light packets so this should be obvious. Light travels at light speed). In fact any massless particle travels at c.

Just curious, how do they explain light being affected by gravity (e.g. black holes) if it has no mass?

This isn't the greatest explanation imo, but... Text

 

[degibson]

I recall from physics and from the discussion above that any object of nonzero mass at rest undergoes a mass inflation as its velocity approaches c, such that force required for nonzero acceleration asymptotically approaches infinity as v->c. This has two implications:

1) Man cannot simply accelerate a starship, or even a particle, to C, because the entire universe doesn't contain enough energy to do so.
2) If there ever was some nonzero mass entity moving at or greater than C, it would require infinite force to stop it, because its mass would be infinite (read: end of the world/universe, or more optimistically, a permanent energy source)

So, assuming that we can't simply accelerate to C, lets talk about the less straightforward approaches to faster-than-light travel. The link above about distorted space-time bending light reminds me of 'wormholes' and such, which probably don't exist (I am not an expert at all), so what about using distorted space-time to, for instance, to cross a large distance very quickly?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: BFG10K

FYI, photons DO NOT travel faster than light, they travel at the speed of light (photons are light packets so this should be obvious. Light travels at light speed). In fact any massless particle travels at c.

Just curious, how do they explain light being affected by gravity (e.g. black holes) if it has no mass?

This isn't the greatest explanation imo, but... Text

Mmmm .. black holes .. my favorite .. next to worm holes
[right next to one]

The Schwarzschild Black Hole was an interesting explanation for this phenomena

this might be a more practical explanation for what is observable

http://www.eso.org/public/outr.../pr-2007/pr-26-07.html

For both events, the afterglow light curve initially rose, then reached a peak, and eventually started to decline, as is typical of GRB afterglows. The peak is, however, only rarely detected. Its determination is very important, since it allows a direct measurement of the expansion velocity of the explosion of the material. For both bursts, the velocity turns out to be very close to the speed of light, precisely 99.9997% of this value. Scientists use a special number, called the Lorentz factor, to express these high velocities. Objects moving much slower than light have a Lorentz factor of about 1, while for the two GRBs it is about 400.

"Matter is thus moving with a speed that is only different from that of light by three parts in a million," says Stefano Covino, co-author of the study. "While single particles in the Universe can be accelerated to still larger velocities - i.e. much larger Lorentz factors - one has to realise that in the present cases, it is the equivalent of about 200 times the mass of the Earth that acquired this incredible speed."
..
The measurement of the Lorentz factor is an important step in understanding gamma-ray burst explosions. This is in fact one of the fundamental parameters of the theory which tries to explain these gigantic explosions, and up to now it was only poorly determined.

"The next question is which kind of 'engine' can accelerate matter to such enormous speeds," says Covino.

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are short flashes of energetic gamma-rays lasting from less than a second to several minutes. They release a tremendous quantity of energy in this short time making them the most powerful events since the Big Bang. They come in two different flavours, long and short ones. Over the past few years, international efforts have convincingly shown that long gamma-ray bursts are linked with the ultimate explosion of massive stars (hypernovae; see e.g. ESO PR 16/03) while the short ones most likely originate from the violent collision of neutron stars and/or black holes (see e.g. ESO PR 26/05 and 32/05). Irrespective of the original source of the GRB energy, the injection of so much energy into a confined volume will cause a fireball to form.

OK , so that IS matter .. accelerated to .99999% of the speed of light
- by an engine we don't fully understand- and this is "regular" quantum mechanics

Now if you want a "unified theory" we run into some problems as Einstein discovered and i think he was reconciling them and may have even done so.
Most of the issues merging these theories re: energy scaling comes from the apparently conflicting assumptions that these theories make on how the universe "works".

Quantum field theory depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of special relativity. Models demonstrating general relativity show gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as gravitational mass sifts.

in the past, combining the two came up against renormalization; gravity particles would attract each other. If you sun together all of the interactions results you get infinite values which cannot easily be reconciled mathematically to yield coherent results. In contrast, quantum electrodynamics - the series still do not converge yet the interactions evaluate to infinite results; but not enough to be removable by renormalization - so there is no good explanation

so that leads to the "effective field theory"
--are *they* confused .. or am i confused?


of course to confuse it further we have the 'Chronology protection conjecture' by S. Hawking, that the laws of physics are such as to prevent time travel on all but sub-microscopic scales. Mathematically, the permissibility of time travel is represented by the existence of closed time-like curves. That kind of shuts down "warp drive"

However, it IS apparently possible for nearly-infinitely small particles .. that's all?
. . . we are "stuck" here? .. in space and time ..

i don't think so ... there is something about "impossible" i don't care for and in 1996, Li-Xin Li published a paper in which he postulates the anti-chronology protection conjecture:

In the appearance of absorption material, the quantum vacuum fluctuations of all kinds of fields may be smoothed out and the spacetime with time machine may be stable against vacuum fluctuations. The chronology protection conjecture might break down, and the anti-chronology protection conjecture might hold: There is no law of physics preventing the appearance of closed timelike curves.

where are we .. now? We even see current physical theories incorporating the upper limit on propagation of interaction as one of their basic building blocks, hence ruling out instantaneous action-at-a-distance. Simultaneously there IS a strange but apparently real effect - Quantum teleportation - that exists - and is unexplained [as far as i know]

and we better not forget the EPR paradox. It was a thought experiment challenging the long held relation between observed values of physical quantities values that can be accounted for by a physical theory. "EPR" stands for Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. They introduced this experiment in 1935 paper to argue that quantum mechanics is not a complete physical theory.

Of course actual experimental results refute the principle of locality that invalidate EPR's original purpose. The "action at a distance" that so disturbed EPR's authors consistently occurs in many replicated experiments. As far as i know, Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics as a complete theory. He wrestled with it to the end of his life for his interpretation that could comply with relativity without implying that "god plays dice".



it looks like a mess .. of conflicting theories




edited .. done i think

 

[apoppin]

One more time before i give up here

Perhaps i am being too theoretical

lets just follow ONE line of new research that IS appearing to have real results

in 2004 we get this:

Physicists Succeed In Transferring Information Between Matter And Light

Atlanta GA (SPX) Oct 22, 2004
A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon.

now we move to '06:

http://www.physorg.com/news10924.html

The first experimental demonstration of quantum telecloning has been achieved by scientists at the University of Tokyo, the Japan Science and Technology Agency, and the University of York. The work is reported in the latest issue of Physical Review Letters. Telecloning combines cloning (or copying) with teleportation (i.e., disembodied transport).

The scientists have succeeded in making the first remote copies of beams of laser light, by combining quantum cloning with quantum teleportation into a single experimental step. Telecloning is more efficient than any combination of teleportation and local cloning because it relies on a new form of quantum entanglement - multipartite entanglement.

Professor Sam Braunstein, of the Department of Computer Science at York, said: "Quantum mechanics allows us to do things which we previously thought were impossible. In 1998, I was involved in an experiment in America which was one of the first for quantum teleportation in which we transmitted a beam of light without it crossing the physical medium in between.

"This new experiment is an extension of that work. Whether it will change the world for individuals or is just of use to governments or big companies is hard to say. Any new protocol is like a new-born baby and it has to develop, but we know this one could be used to tap cryptographic channels.

also in '06:

Viennese physicist Anton Zeilinger talks about teleportation, the information stored in a human being and freedom in physics.

Transferring the properties of light particles over certain distances onto other light particles, with no time delay. The procedure is based on phenomena which exist only in the quantum world, and is known as "quantum teleportation."
. . . we transfer properties, not matter. And secondly, until now we have had more success with light particles and occasionally with atoms, not with larger objects.

Last year we teleported light particles across a distance of 600 metres under the Danube ? that's the current world record. In theory the range is limitless. I always say that when the Americans really start their Mars mission, the 280-day journey will be deadly boring for the astronauts. They might be interested in taking part in a few teleportation experiments on the way, and increase the record by a hundred million kilometres or so. . . .
it differs from simple copying in that the original loses all its properties. That is something so crazy that it could only exist in the quantum world. You can actually remove all the properties of a particle and give them to another particle.

he goes on to say that "teleporting" more than single atoms involve "practical considerations"

finally ... this is IBM at is most simplistic:

http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

what do you think .. ?

forget it?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Apoppin, you are arguing using a logical fallacy known as proof by verbosity. Basically you are putting forward such an overwhelming number of articles and arguments that it's not possible for people like me to address every issue in your argument and you win "by default", which obviously isn't right. Can you please find a single issue at a time to home in on so that we can address is properly instead of sending pages and pages of links of unrelated phenomena.

Edit - by the way, that article on the Alcubierre Drive is extremely interesting, thanks for posting it. For what it's worth it doesn't look like there is a relativity violation because the ship would be stationary in local space, where relativity only forbids faster-than-c travel locally. It's a similar concept to how matter in the universe receded at much faster than c from other matter shortly after the big bang - space itself was expanding and nothing was moving faster than c locally.

 

[mozirry]

 

[BFG10K]

This isn't the greatest explanation imo, but... Text

Very nice - thankyou. :thumbsup:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Apoppin, you are arguing using a logical fallacy known as proof by verbosity. Basically you are putting forward such an overwhelming number of articles and arguments that it's not possible for people like me to address every issue in your argument and you win "by default", which obviously isn't right. Can you please find a single issue at a time to home in on so that we can address is properly instead of sending pages and pages of links of unrelated phenomena.

Edit - by the way, that article on the Alcubierre Drive is extremely interesting, thanks for posting it. For what it's worth it doesn't look like there is a relativity violation because the ship would be stationary in local space, where relativity only forbids faster-than-c travel locally. It's a similar concept to how matter in the universe receded at much faster than c from other matter shortly after the big bang - space itself was expanding and nothing was moving faster than c locally.

yes ... it IS verbosity ,,, but i am ASKING for proof
.. am i even arguing?

and i DID narrow my OWN topic to a single line - *teleportation* but you dismissed it in a single word - unlikely
--This information i am interested in, is where i left off - about 35 years ago .. it was sci-fi for us here then .. i was really looking into it then .. and i just wanted to see how it was progressing now.

. . .and i remember about 20 lines of speculation that evidently were taken quite seriously by researchers - including theoretical warp drives - and it amazes me that some Sci-fi writers appear to have been quite Visionary and even comprehended Einstein's principles even though the math was beyond them

So i just tossed everything up in the air - all at once - just like evolution does - and i wanted to see if anyone would "bite" on just *one* of them

i don't care WHERE this discussion goes - it is up to you .. it may end up in the archives where it will lie forgotten for centuries until the Travelers come back to research and find out where we went.

The podium is yours - take the discussion in any direction you want - *except traditional Quantum* - i can find that anywhere.

--it isn't like i am in a hurry to get out of here or anything like that ..

if you want my suggestion .. start with "teleportation" .. better subjects may suggest themselves

 

[Martimus]

Here is the promised write-up. Not quite what I had planned on publishing, and I didn't even include any of my equations to explain the relative motion, but it should give you an idea of what is going on.

First, let me start off by explain what I was trying to do when I stumbled upon the Theory we know as Relativity. I was studying the physics and chemistry of biology at a cellular level, and I started to realize that time didn?t make sense by itself. I seemed that it was only the movement of objects in relation to each other, or relative motion. If nothing moved in relation to anything else, time would stand still. And time is only the measurement of relative movement; and not direct movement.

Next I went about trying to figure out what level of relative movement affected time at our level. This was a very difficult question. It was obvious pretty quickly during my research that relative movement at a molecular level definitely affected our interpretation of time. However, certain relative motion below that level seems to affect it as well, while others did not. The conclusion that I came up with was that our interpretation of time was controlled at the molecular level, and that the relative location, direction, and energy (speed/acceleration) of the molecules were what controlled time at our level. I had wanted to call the theory ?the theory of relativity?, but that was taken already, so I called it ?the theory of relative time?. I planned on finishing up the work and publishing it at some point. What I found later was that my work mimicked Einsteins with his theory of Relativity. No wonder I wanted to call it the same thing, it was the same thing!

The problem was that he assumed a maximum relative motion, while I assumed that relative motion could not be constrained. However, as I looked into it more, I realized that he was right. Or at least partially right. There is a maximum relative motion when it comes to mass, and that would be pure kinetic energy. Einstein made the assumption that light was pure kinetic energy, and there is a lot of evidence to support this. They exert momentum, yet have no measurable mass; so it only goes to reason that they are pure kinetic energy. If this is true, than no object of mass would ever be able to accelerate as quickly as light. Even if it isn?t true, light is very close to pure kinetic energy, so mass is unlikely to be able to accelerate much faster than light. Changing a constant C to a variable for the value of pure kinetic energy allows the theory to go on as stated for all objects of mass.

This brings us to the next problem. Not all reactions require a movement of mass to occur. Energy such as Gravity and Electromagnetic Fields require no moving mass to affect objects, so it is possible that reactions can occur faster than what the theory of relativity would suggest possible. So reactions are possible at a faster than light speed, but no object of mass can accelerate as a faster rate than light; unless light is not pure kinetic energy (if light has some amount of potential energy ? in the form of mass ? than it would be technically possible to travel faster, but this has not been found).

Finally, the usefulness of what I found is that time travel, teleportation and replication are possible although we cannot control any of them. In order to travel back in time, we would need to set all molecules in the test area in the exact spot they were at the target time, traveling in the same direction, with the same amount of kinetic energy. This would be impossible to do according to the Uncertainty Principle. So unless Heisenberg was incorrect, we will never be able to travel back in time. Even if he were wrong, the resources to do so would be beyond any feasibility, and we would only be able to do it for a limited area; the rest of the universe would continue on at the current time. (Traveling forward in time is actually relatively easy, you just need to stop the relative motion of the molecules in the test area, and restart them at a later time. While freezing something to absolute zero is impossible, it would be possible to freeze it enough to slow down time in that area compared to everything else. Of course we already move forward in time anyway, so this should not be of any shock that this is the easiest of the aforementioned things to do.) Replication and Teleportation are really the same thing, except teleportation destroys the original object. This would be accomplished similar to the method described of traveling back in time. Again, it would be impossible to control if the Uncertainty Principle are true, but if you are able to manipulate objects on a molecular level, you should be able to move all molecules from one space to another and place them in the same relative location, with the same relative direction, and the same relative kinetic energy and the object should react the same. Any energy within the object (gravity, EM fields) would be regenerated on the new object, but it should be nearly the same; so that is would be nearly indiscernible from the original object.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . .and i remember about 20 lines of speculation that evidently were taken quite seriously by researchers - including theoretical warp drives - and it amazes me that some Sci-fi writers appear to have been quite Visionary and even comprehended Einstein's principles even though the math was beyond them

Actually the math is quite simple. The whole idea of Relativity is very simple, and easy to understand; it just isn't obvious based on most peoples real world experience. I was 16 when I originally wrote the above theory, and I am not a smart man. My equations mimicked Einsteins, and I didn't even know it until I took advanced physics in College. Relativity was one of his simpler theories, and I don't understand why it has an air of complexity to it. It isn't much more complex than any other major physics theory. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all extremely complex physics theories are wrong, because if it takes a lot of complicated math to describe what you are talking about, chances are that you are looking at it wrong, and are only trying to explain why it isn't doing what you think it should.

 

[Modelworks]

Great book on this and other questionable physics items:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi...IN/0385520697/mkaku-20

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Martimus
Here is the promised write-up. Not quite what I had planned on publishing, and I didn't even include any of my equations to explain the relative motion, but it should give you an idea of what is going on.

First, let me start off by explain what I was trying to do when I stumbled upon the Theory we know as Relativity. I was studying the physics and chemistry of biology at a cellular level, and I started to realize that time didn?t make sense by itself. I seemed that it was only the movement of objects in relation to each other, or relative motion. If nothing moved in relation to anything else, time would stand still. And time is only the measurement of relative movement; and not direct movement.

Next I went about trying to figure out what level of relative movement affected time at our level. This was a very difficult question. It was obvious pretty quickly during my research that relative movement at a molecular level definitely affected our interpretation of time. However, certain relative motion below that level seems to affect it as well, while others did not. The conclusion that I came up with was that our interpretation of time was controlled at the molecular level, and that the relative location, direction, and energy (speed/acceleration) of the molecules were what controlled time at our level. I had wanted to call the theory ?the theory of relativity?, but that was taken already, so I called it ?the theory of relative time?. I planned on finishing up the work and publishing it at some point. What I found later was that my work mimicked Einsteins with his theory of Relativity. No wonder I wanted to call it the same thing, it was the same thing!

The problem was that he assumed a maximum relative motion, while I assumed that relative motion could not be constrained. However, as I looked into it more, I realized that he was right. Or at least partially right. There is a maximum relative motion when it comes to mass, and that would be pure kinetic energy. Einstein made the assumption that light was pure kinetic energy, and there is a lot of evidence to support this. They exert momentum, yet have no measurable mass; so it only goes to reason that they are pure kinetic energy. If this is true, than no object of mass would ever be able to accelerate as quickly as light. Even if it isn?t true, light is very close to pure kinetic energy, so mass is unlikely to be able to accelerate much faster than light. Changing a constant C to a variable for the value of pure kinetic energy allows the theory to go on as stated for all objects of mass.

This brings us to the next problem. Not all reactions require a movement of mass to occur. Energy such as Gravity and Electromagnetic Fields require no moving mass to affect objects, so it is possible that reactions can occur faster than what the theory of relativity would suggest possible. So reactions are possible at a faster than light speed, but no object of mass can accelerate as a faster rate than light; unless light is not pure kinetic energy (if light has some amount of potential energy ? in the form of mass ? than it would be technically possible to travel faster, but this has not been found).

Finally, the usefulness of what I found is that time travel, teleportation and replication are possible although we cannot control any of them. In order to travel back in time, we would need to set all molecules in the test area in the exact spot they were at the target time, traveling in the same direction, with the same amount of kinetic energy. This would be impossible to do according to the Uncertainty Principle. So unless Heisenberg was incorrect, we will never be able to travel back in time. Even if he were wrong, the resources to do so would be beyond any feasibility, and we would only be able to do it for a limited area; the rest of the universe would continue on at the current time. (Traveling forward in time is actually relatively easy, you just need to stop the relative motion of the molecules in the test area, and restart them at a later time. While freezing something to absolute zero is impossible, it would be possible to freeze it enough to slow down time in that area compared to everything else. Of course we already move forward in time anyway, so this should not be of any shock that this is the easiest of the aforementioned things to do.) Replication and Teleportation are really the same thing, except teleportation destroys the original object. This would be accomplished similar to the method described of traveling back in time. Again, it would be impossible to control if the Uncertainty Principle are true, but if you are able to manipulate objects on a molecular level, you should be able to move all molecules from one space to another and place them in the same relative location, with the same relative direction, and the same relative kinetic energy and the object should react the same. Any energy within the object (gravity, EM fields) would be regenerated on the new object, but it should be nearly the same; so that is would be nearly indiscernible from the original object.

fascinating .. it is philosophy at a higher level than usual

my idea says that as matter approaches light speed it changes .. and it is no longer "purely matter" as we know it .. and it will disappear from our material view/universe as it exceeds light speed and will becomes energy .. and now 'we' are in an 'alternate' place.

Warp 1


and this IS important .. when you consider "accelerating" matter near c, imo

Energy such as Gravity and Electromagnetic Fields require no moving mass to affect objects, so it is possible that reactions can occur faster than what the theory of relativity would suggest possible. So reactions are possible at a faster than light speed, but no object of mass can accelerate as a faster rate than light; unless light is not pure kinetic energy (if light has some amount of potential energy ? in the form of mass ? than it would be technically possible to travel faster, but this has not been found).

Of course it is simply an idea, that depends on the math of energy-matter conversion. Of course, if we can "control" it somehow, it would appear that as you slow down, the energy may return to its original matter state intact .. of course at a different 'place' and possibly at another 'time'

still the stuff of sci-fi here

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Martimus
Stuff ...

fascinating .. it is philosophy at a higher level than usual

my idea says that as matter approaches light speed it changes .. and it is no longer "purely matter" as we know it .. and it will disappear from our material view/universe as it exceeds light speed and will becomes energy .. and now 'we' are in an 'alternate' place.

Warp 1


and this IS important .. when you consider "accelerating" matter near c, imo

Energy such as Gravity and Electromagnetic Fields require no moving mass to affect objects, so it is possible that reactions can occur faster than what the theory of relativity would suggest possible. So reactions are possible at a faster than light speed, but no object of mass can accelerate as a faster rate than light; unless light is not pure kinetic energy (if light has some amount of potential energy ? in the form of mass ? than it would be technically possible to travel faster, but this has not been found).

Of course it is simply an idea, that depends on the math of energy-matter conversion. Of course, if we can "control" it somehow, it would appear that as you slow down, the energy may return to its original matter state intact .. of course at a different 'place' and possibly at another 'time'

still the stuff of sci-fi here

Well, we already have a name for energy as mass; it is Potential energy. I have always believed that all matter is energy, it just depends on what form it is taking.

The problem is that light should continue accelerating ad infinium in a vacuum, but it does not. It takes no energy to maintain a velocity, only to accelerate; yet light expends energy just staying at a constant velocity. This goes to show that relative speed is governed on two sides, and not just one. We already know what the first governed relative speed is: 0. Obviously an object cannot move slower in relation to you than a stopped position. This is why Einstein postulated that there was a maximum speed limit. He also showed that relative speed is not linear; it changes as it approaches the maximum and the minumum. This second part is important, because it is often overlooked in the scheme of things. Objects can approach 0 relative velocity, but it is nearly impossible to actually reach that velocity. This leads to problems with trying to reach absolute zero, which would be the lack of kinetic energy.

Here is what is happening as you accelerate: You expend energy to increase your relative velocity by 100kph; if the relation between energy and relative velocity were linear then you would need to expend an equal amount of energy to double your relative velocity, but you will actually increase your relative velocity by less than 100kph. However, to you you are taveling 100kph faster, but to your suroundings you are not going quite that fast.

I'm sorry I got sidetracked, and forgot where I was going with that last paragraph. Maybe I will write something later.

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Martimus
Stuff ...

fascinating .. it is philosophy at a higher level than usual

my idea says that as matter approaches light speed it changes .. and it is no longer "purely matter" as we know it .. and it will disappear from our material view/universe as it exceeds light speed and will becomes energy .. and now 'we' are in an 'alternate' place.

Warp 1


and this IS important .. when you consider "accelerating" matter near c, imo

Energy such as Gravity and Electromagnetic Fields require no moving mass to affect objects, so it is possible that reactions can occur faster than what the theory of relativity would suggest possible. So reactions are possible at a faster than light speed, but no object of mass can accelerate as a faster rate than light; unless light is not pure kinetic energy (if light has some amount of potential energy ? in the form of mass ? than it would be technically possible to travel faster, but this has not been found).

Of course it is simply an idea, that depends on the math of energy-matter conversion. Of course, if we can "control" it somehow, it would appear that as you slow down, the energy may return to its original matter state intact .. of course at a different 'place' and possibly at another 'time'

still the stuff of sci-fi here

Well, we already have a name for energy as mass; it is Potential energy. I have always believed that all matter is energy, it just depends on what form it is taking.

The problem is that light should continue accelerating ad infinium in a vacuum, but it does not. It takes no energy to maintain a velocity, only to accelerate; yet light expends energy just staying at a constant velocity. This goes to show that relative speed is governed on two sides, and not just one. We already know what the first governed relative speed is: 0. Obviously an object cannot move slower in relation to you than a stopped position. This is why Einstein postulated that there was a maximum speed limit. He also showed that relative speed is not linear; it changes as it approaches the maximum and the minumum. This second part is important, because it is often overlooked in the scheme of things. Objects can approach 0 relative velocity, but it is nearly impossible to actually reach that velocity. This leads to problems with trying to reach absolute zero, which would be the lack of kinetic energy.

Here is what is happening as you accelerate: You expend energy to increase your relative velocity by 100kph; if the relation between energy and relative velocity were linear then you would need to expend an equal amount of energy to double your relative velocity, but you will actually increase your relative velocity by less than 100kph. However, to you you are taveling 100kph faster, but to your suroundings you are not going quite that fast.

I'm sorry I got sidetracked, and forgot where I was going with that last paragraph. Maybe I will write something later.

?And if E ? mc²

 

[Fieryphoenix]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Just curious, how do they explain light being affected by gravity (e.g. black holes) if it has no mass?

Light follows the contour of the space it travels through, taking the shortest path. Where you have mass, the space is "bent", or distorted, by gravity. The actual shortest path through the distorted space is curved due to the spacial distortion, so that's the path the light follows.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: RideFree
?And if E ? mc²

C just took the place of kinetic energy in the equation for inertia. If Einstein was wrong about C being the maximum acceleration possible, it really wouldn't make much of a difference since C is the maximum that most particles travel; meaning that nothing that relies on interaction with those particles could happen at a faster rate - hence the term relativity.