Causality Violation

[alkalin]

Maddad,<br />‘There is another possibility. Consider a particle moving at twice c that is not on a collision course with us, but just set to pass by very closely. Our first observation would be the appearance of two particles, not one. We would see one moving on the expected course in the expected direction. We would also see a second particle moving away from us much faster than twice c.”<br /><br />Two particles?<br /><br />I think it might depend on how you define your conditions. For example, you could say the object reflects light, which you then can see and measure, or that the object emits it’s own light, which you can then measure, or that the object leaves a wave due to the influence on other objects, which you can then measure, or that the ‘wave’ is on your detectors directly. And I may have missed a few conditions, too.<br /><br />But I believe you will definitely see something of an object that is FTL just as you can hear sonic booms of an object traveling FTS and then it’s signature afterwards.<br /><br />

 

[Maddad]

Yes, we would see two particles, not one. Can you tell me why we would see two, and where they would first appear together?

 

[bobvanx]

Those two-slit experiments really boggle my mind. I retreat to the idea that clearly, we just don't have a good explanation, because how can our detection of an event in the present force an action in the distant past?<br /><br />We're working hard at understanding this, and defining the role of Observer, but it looks to me like there is still a bit of discovery left to do.

 

[Maddad]

stevehw33<br />"<font color="yellow">Consider what you are writing. Nothing can move at twice cee.</font><br /><br />Please find an imagination. We are considering what we should see if something did move that fast. Unless we know what to expect, how could we know if we had verified your hypothesis or not?

 

[bobvanx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...not scientific speculation. They are purest fiction.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Steve, in Euclidean geometry, exactly one line can be drawn parallel to another, through a given point. We can visualize this, and build up a good set of rules that we can use for an aspect of our world. In non-Euclidean geometry, more than one line can be drawn through that point. This makes no intuitive sense, but it yields very useful descriptions for other things that go on in our world.<br /><br />There is no answer for the square root of -1, yet by using imaginary numbers we get a meaningful handle on the entire realm of chaos theory.<br /><br />I've just given two examples where things that aren't possible, give us new tools to make our way through the real world.<br /><br />So merely because <i>you</i> are not able to hold the idea of twice cee in your mind, doesn't mean there is no value in pursuing the idea. The results may be unknowable, but could quite possibly yield something useful.

 

[Maddad]

Just answer the question, steve. What would you see?

 

[bobvanx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But I believe you will definitely see something of an object that is FTL just as you can hear sonic booms of an object traveling FTS and then it’s signature afterwards<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The shock waves from a photon traveling faster than the medium allows is called (I think) Cherenkov radiation. It's a cone of blue light. We've detected it it water and other wet mediums. We've never detected it in vacuum.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Maddad:<br /><br />A few more “Causality Violations” would be telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition (remote viewing) and the currently held “Big Bang Theory”. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Maddad]

FTL transportation combined with FTL communication can result in your receiving a message that your ship arrived at its destination before your ship debarks on the trip.

 

[bobvanx]

Steve,<br /><br />I really have to wonder what is so threatening about considering things that cannot possibly happen.<br /><br />It's not a question of ideology or leopards. You argue so vehemently against the use of imagination, that I am honestly concerned for you.<br /><br />You hate it when people put words in your mouth, so why do you do this to others? When did I mistake an interesting thought experiment for an investigation into reality? I know that mathematics is a useful model of our physical reality. I know that things like game theory often exist for decades (centuries!) before someone finds a "practical" use for it.<br /><br />The analogy of a purely mental exercise finding application in the physical world is not meaningless. It is through these imaginative pursuits that we stumble across better models to use as we manipulate the world arond us.<br /><br />Good gracious, man, let loose a little bit your iron grip on what is "real." Let a little chaos and uncertainty in. It's really not that bad.

 

[Maddad]

Maddad<br />"<font color="Lime">Consider a particle moving at twice c that is not on a collision course with us, but just set to pass by very closely. . . We are considering what we should see if something did move that fast. . . Just answer the question, steve. What would you see?</font>"<br />steve<br />"<font color="yellow">The question cannot be answered. Because nothing can achieve greater than light speed.</font><br /><br />Do not tell us that you cannot think because you have been told it cannot be. Tell us what you would see if it did happen.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Stevehw33:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The question cannot be answered. Because nothing can achieve greater than light speed. You are asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. <br /><br />We simply ask, as any good scientifically trained persons would, show us the twice light speed of matter, and then we will answer the question. As that's impossible, the question is simply scientifically meaningless. <br /><br />When you show us scientifically how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then I'll give you our answer about your twice light speed nonsense. <br /><br /><font color="white">The question isn’t scientifically meaningless. Everything’s relative Steve. What size are the angels you speak of? How large is the pin? Is the head of the pin round or flat? <br /><br />If nothing can achieve FTL speed, perhaps the trick is to get the universe to recognize you as nothing. Then you could go as fast as you want.<br /><br />Perhaps this can be done by surrounding one’s spacecraft in a special kind of energy field that we on earth have yet to discover. We know extraterrestrials have this technology. I’ve asked them about it but they wouldn’t tell me how they did it. If I get the opportunity again, I’m going to be more persistent. Their ships make a humming noise that can be heard both inside and outside while they are in flight, so my guess is that it has something to do with at least an electro magnetic field, and maybe a graviton field, since they also have artificial gravity on their ship.<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Bobvanx:<br /><br />Don’t waste your breath Bob, Steve’s probably never heard of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.<br /><br />"The more precisely the POSITION is determined, the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known in this instant, and vice versa. " <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Maddad:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> "Consider a particle moving at twice c that is not on a collision course with us, but just set to pass by very closely. . . We are considering what we should see if something did move that fast. . . Just answer the question, steve. What would you see?"<br /><br /><font color="white"> You’ve asked a good question Maddad. What I think you would see is “nothing” since a particle of matter (I’m assuming you are referring to an atomic, or subatomic particle) is too small to see with the unaided, human eye. If ANYTHING were moving at twice C, or even C, it’s still moving to fast for one’s mind to observe it. The best one could do is measure its effect upon other objects that aren’t moving at that speed. <br /><br />FTL speed may be universal escape velocity. If an object is moving at twice C, it may not even be in this universe; it might be in orbit around the universe and using a special fourth spatial dimension. At FTL speed, perhaps one could control time by simply picking the precise three dimensional reentry point in which to reenter back into normal three dimensional space. One could choose to come back into the universe in the past, future or present, based upon navigation and the spatial maneuvers one would make while outside three dimensional space, in four dimensional space. <br /><br />Perhaps there are people on this planet right now, who are actually from the future, and who were just waiting for me to make this announcement so they can say, “Yes! That’s exactly how we do it! We couldn’t tell you before because it would have created a paradox.” <br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>get the universe to recognize you as nothing<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />LOL<br />LOL<br />LOL<br />(still not done yet)<br />LOL<br />(breathing now..)<br />hee hee hee

 

[bobvanx]

Nice posts, Steve. Carefully, concisely worded, with very little animosity.<br /><br />Much easier to read than some other times.<br /><br />Since I don't work in your field, but rather in helping people achieve their dreams, I guess I have a different view of how primitive we are. I get to see the best of our race, the brightest, the ones who are moving us into the future. I see sanity as being far more robust than you apparently do.<br /><br />Rather than a fixed, rigid construct, I see sanity as being flexible and adaptive.<br /><br />That flexibility includes the ability to entertain "nonsense" and know that it does not threaten reality. Exploration is the willingness to step into the unknown. For someone who lacks a grip on reality, then reality is unknown and frightening. For someone who is very comfortable with reality, stepping into the unknown means releasing some of that and exploring the boundary of sanity.<br /><br />We know we will return. We also hope that we will bring back something new and wonderful with us.

 

[kmarinas86]

Pi is the result of measuring the proportion of the circumference of an abstract ideal circle to it's diameter. It cannot change! It is not variable! Pi is timeless.<br /><br />Proof for pi:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Analysis <br /><br /><br /><br />Equation for the speed of light:<br /><br />http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/Sr6/eq3.gif<br /><br />from this page: http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/Sr6/sr6.htm<br /><br />c = 1 / (E₀µ₀)^.5<br />Where:<br />c = speed of light<br />E₀ = permittivity of free space(8.85419x10^-12Fm^-1)<br />µ₀ = permeability of free space (4pi*10^-7Hm^-1) <br /><br /><br />Scientists from many places, as far as I can tell, have not considered or believe it is wrong to think that that the permeability of free space and permittivity of free space are variable in the interstellar and intergalactic mediums. Is there an astronomical observation or a mathmatical proof that shows that this is not the case?

 

[Maddad]

averygoodspirit<br />"<font color="yellow">What I think you would see is “nothing” since a particle of matter (I’m assuming you are referring to an atomic, or subatomic particle) is too small to see with the unaided, human eye.</font><br />So tell us what you would see if it were a spaceship moving at twice the speed of light, approaching but not quite on a collission course.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">If ANYTHING were moving at twice C, or even C, it’s still moving to fast for one’s mind to observe it.</font><br />Why? Does the spaceship not emit light? Does that light not travel at the same speed as all other light? Sure you could see it.<br /><br />Work it out like a spread sheet. Start with the spaceship so many units from it's point of closest approach. Examine light leaving the spaceship each unit, and compare that to when that same light arrives at your observation point. Then you can tell me what you would see.<br /><br />steve<br />"<font color="yellow">Humanity's sanity is a pretty fragile thing, in case you haven't noticed.</font><br />Yes, we've all noticed your difficulty in this area.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">And now some unlearned person writes I've 'probably never heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle." Well, I sure have</font><br />steve, it's supposed to be a slap at you for being a head case, not a declaration that you do not know what it is. Learn what you need to defend and what makes you look silly when you fight it.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">There is no educated, sane person who would hold that the speed of light can be exceeded at double the velocity of cee.</font><br />That isn't the issue, steve. The question is what would you see if it did. I asked you to think, and you are unable. All you can tell us is what other learned people have told you. We teach parrots that.

 

[electronman]

Please excuse for being late in the vigorous discusssion in the speed of light, causality violation and other connected ideas which I found intriguing. To throw a curve ball to what is already in the state of chaos, I am encouraged about the article by Laurance R. Doyle "Quantum Astronomy: A cosmic-scale Double-slit Experiment" 13 Jan 2005 and three other installations. <br /><br />In there he mentions and I quote "time, is at best, a variable, and is also quantized. He goes further and I quote "Far from being an absolute, time in quantum physic is a not a solid background upon wich particles in space change. In quantum physics time is not yet a really, in a sense, even there, until the "time particles" are measured" Evidently there is an outstanding effort to prove that events maybe possible even faster than the speed of light. After all nothing is sacred about speed which is nothing more but an idea relating distance with respect to time or a derivative of distance with respect to time. One can think also of a density of time with respect to distance or another way to put it, the derivative of time with respect to distance. Furthermore, the derivative of time is the reciprocal of the derivative of distance. Don't you agree? I am most encouraged by Laurance R. Doyle and his colligues at the Seti Institute. Cosmology because of humongous dimensions involved may be the tool to prove faster than speed of light events. If they are right the facts based on Einstein may have to be modified. Perhaps it will bring us closer to find an answer to the ellusive holy grail of science, The Grand Unification Theory". Anyone knows how to get updated in their effort? I will be glad to hear from anyone.

 

[djtt]

a very interesting post this..<br />will look into that a bit deeper<br /><br />i figure it may be possible to traverse through space by bending it and not changing your own position..<br />supposing time as a non-absolute, under the right circumstances, the same could go for space<br /><br />so would you be travelling faster then light in that case?<br />or wouldnt it be considered actual travelling at all?