Alfred, Brian, Cindy & David are trying to violate causality.<br /><br />Alfred and Brian are sitting in their flying saucers in interstellar space. Cindy and David are flying their flying saucers in formation at a constant velocity towards Alfred and Brian respectively.<br /><br />Alfred pulls out his handy-dandy FTL communicator (yes I know that FTL violates the current understanding of all physical laws, but this is a thought exercise. It would be impossible for me to enjoy carnal knowledge of Kate Beckinsale and her two identical triplets too, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking about it!) and sends a 3 second message to Brian. <br /><br />Because Brian is 10 light minutes away from Alfred, the FTL communicator needs 15 seconds to reach Brian from Alfred's position. <br /><br />Brian receives Alfred's transmission and immediately retransmits it to David whose flying saucer is just now passing by Brian's. The transmission from Brian to David is another 3 seconds (since they are so close the time for the FTL to reach from Brian to David is small enough for us to ignore) and David immediately relays this message to Cindy. <br /><br />Since Cindy is just passing Alfred while David is passing Brian, and since Cindy and David are following parallel courses, the time the FTL needs to reach from David to Cindy is another 15 seconds. <br /><br />Cindy then relays the signal to Alfred (again with negligible signal travel time) adding another 3 seconds to the round about trip of this signal.<br /><br />So that's 18 seconds from Alfred to Brian, 3 seconds from Brian to David, 18 seconds from David to Cindy, and 3 seconds from Cindy to Alfred again for a total of 42 seconds (the answer's always 42 isn't it?).<br /><br />Could somebody please explain to me why using the mythical FTL communicator in this scenario will create the paradox of Cindy sending Alfred the signal before Alfred sends it to Brian?<br /><br />Much obliged <br />
- Status
Uh...Cavemann...Wikipedia sez Kate Beckinsdale has a paternal half-sister...they don't mention triplets...<br /><br />Kate Beckinsdale:
Hence the reason it would be impossible to spend a fun-filled evening with Kate and her two identical triplets.
Just the thought of Kate B. in her black "Underworld" outfit gives me the warm & tinglies <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Though each of those examples is as clear as mud I did glean one bit of important information from them: Each assumes the communication will be instantaneous. <br /><br />Obviously instantanous communication is impossible for us mere mortals, but faster than light communication and instantaneous communication are two distinctly different things- though I will admit instantaneous communication is obviously faster than light, not all faster than light communication will be instantaneous.<br /><br />If the instantaneous is taken off the table and we assume that the communication is faster than light but requires time to reach the receiver, how can a message sent via such an system arrive before it left?
Having reviewed the material I've come to the conclusion that this theory is wrong. <br /><br />1. It rejects absolute objectivity. This isn't something that can be proven but without an absolutely objective point of view there can not be an absolute cause and effect.<br /><br />2. The entire theory is based off of the absolute speed of light being the same everywhere and we know for a fact the speed of light is dependant upon the medium through which it passes and the frequency of the light itself. Thus the speed of light is variable not constant. I find this even more ironic, as the whole theory claims that all things are in motion and speed is always relative- except for the speed of light, which for some reason, is absolute even though this is demonstratably wrong.<br /><br />3. The paradox requires "relativistic" speed in conjunction with an FTL signal. Yet if all things are relative and there is no absolutely objective point of view then "relativistic speed" is any speed different from the observer's velocity.<br /><br />I think Special Relativity has crossed out of the realm of science and become an odd type of religion.<br /><br />Thank you for your time to help me understand this idea.<br />
Hi, Cavemann;<br /><br />What happens when light enters a transparent medium is that as it encounters atoms, it is briefly absorbed and almost immediately re-emitted. The light flies between the atoms at c, the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is my understanding that if two plates of metal are placed very close to one another in a vacuum and a beam of light is fired between them that the speed of that light exceeds the speed of light in the surrounding vacuum. If this is so, then the speed of light is not constant even in a vacuum and the Big E's (you get 10 points on the Crackpot scale for mentioning his name) first condition for relativity is broken.
Oh well... :-(<br /><br />I have never looked my FTL scenarios from this point of view... Have to think about this a while and read more about relativity theories 
<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>
<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>Unfortunately no. One of the places I read this was:<br /><br />http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html<br /><br />Which references:<br /><br />'On Propagation Of Light In The Vacuum Between Plates', Physics Letters B, Vol. 236:3, pp.354-359, 22 February, 1990. By K. Scharnhorst<br /><br />and:<br /><br />'Faster-Than-c Light Between Parallel Mirrors', Physics Letters B, Vol. 237, No. 3,4, p. 559-562, 22March, 1990 By G. Barton<br /><br /><br />I know that I've read it somewhere else concerning an experiment related to the Casimir effect or perhaps the Scharnhorst effect (or another effect named after somebody that I can't pronounce) but I can't seem to locate it right now (isn't that always the case?).<br /><br />
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Caveman: 1. It rejects absolute objectivity. This isn't something that can be proven but without an absolutely objective point of view there can not be an absolute cause and effect.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Does it? It just says, that "now" is subjective, i.e. there is no absolute "now" moment. All the events happening around still obey the causality for every obeserver, the observers in different coordinate system just cannot agree the order of independent events (no causal connection).<br /><br />I have thought this a lot during the day. It seems that because there seems to be no absolute "now" moment, there cannot be a communication system using this non-existing absolute "now" - thus, there's a need to redefine the ansibel. I just don't know how at the moment ;-D<br /><br />I think it's easier to accept SRT and find new definition to FTL than trying to reformulate the relativity theory to allow that, because there's lots more empiric evidence for SRT than for ansibel... For example, if the moment is subjective, the ansibel doesn't necessarily allow time travelling even if the messages to observer come from his/her "future" or "past". But I really have to think this more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>
For example, if the moment is subjective, the ansibel doesn't necessarily allow time travelling even if the messages to observer come from his/her "future" or "past". But I really have to think this more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Cavemann: The paradox requires "relativistic" speed in conjunction with an FTL signal. Yet if all things are relative and there is no absolutely objective point of view then "relativistic speed" is any speed different from the observer's velocity.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, if I understand correctly, it doesn't require relativistic speeds - with relativistic speeds and long distances between the ansibel users the effect comes notable. With smaller velocities and distances, the message comes to past only a little bit.<br /><br />If I understood correctly, there should be no problem using ansibel between observers in the same coordinate system. But this doesn't help us much - even if you couldn't send messages with ansibel to other coordinate systems, you could use "traditional" methods to put your messages to other observers, which then could use ansibels to pass the message to the past of some other observers...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The problem with the theory is that how would one, in all practicality locate the other spin entangled particle? As the distances between the two get larger and larger, then the effect becomes exceedingly unlikely. Particle interactions such as one or both photons or particles interacting with others will scramble the spin entanglement, thus cancelling out the effect.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />my view on this is that the first such interaction encounter of either particle of the entangled pair cancels or ends the entanglement phenomenon, that is it determines what the spin of its counterpart particle will be when detected or when it simply suffers another such interaction encounter before we can detect it ourselves<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>at what sizes, distances & masses, do quantum events, which violate macroscopic rules, make the transition from quantum level processes to macroscopic processes?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />there is no sharp cut off point but the transition is quite fast as we go in scale beyond particles, the way I see it is like this: single free particle if left to itself for a time will delocalize, say after it was detected in a laboratory and localized by its location being determined it will, if left to itself again delocalize and in due time it might be found with some probability anywhere - with the probability to find it decreasing with distance from the place where it was last detected, that is, it might be found with low probability in even some far corner of the laboratory perhaps, a macroscopic distance away<br /><br />now when we talk for example about electron bound to nucleus of an atom, it still gets delocalized around the nucleus if not being disturbed but this time the probability of the electron to be found falls off pretty sharply to almost zero not far from the nucleus and it pretty well won't be found at some macroscopic distanc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Ok, lots of stuff to touch on:<br /><br />1) I draw a distinction between faster-than-light communication (for simplicity allow me to refer to it as “HyperComn”) and the instantaneous communication of the ansibel.<br /><br />If 42 seconds must elapse from initial transmission to receipt of the HyperComn transmission back at the sender, how can it arrive before it was initially transmitted?<br /><br />2) [Does it? It just says, that "now" is subjective, i.e. there is no absolute "now" moment. All the events happening around still obey the causality for every obeserver, the observers in different coordinate system just cannot agree the order of independent events (no causal connection).]<br /><br />There must be an absolute “now” moment. If there isn’t, how can there be an absolute past or future? If you answer: there is no absolute future or past, then you do away with causality. And if each observer’s point of view is equally valid and the order of events is different for every observer, then causality is sacrificed again.<br /><br />3) I see a lot of people talking about particles. It was my understanding that the Particle/Wave debate wasn’t settled yet. I understand that Quantum Theory’s model assumes particles, but I wasn’t aware that had been proven to be more than just a model.<br /><br />4) [No, if I understand correctly, it doesn't require relativistic speeds - with relativistic speeds and long distances between the ansibel users the effect comes notable. With smaller velocities and distances, the message comes to past only a little bit.]<br /><br />In the past a nanosecond might as well be a billion years because ANY thing moving back in time violates causality. And any theory (or discovery) that violates causality razes the foundation of all science.<br /><br />5) [The problem with the theory is that how would one, in all practicality locate the other spin entangled particle?]<br /><br />That’s an engineering problem, not a theory problem. It is theoretically possible, if g
I agree with everything you've said except:<br /><font color="yellow"><br />No one knows beyond all reasonable doubt that FTL velocities are going on at times in quantum tunneling. But there are 3 reports that they do, that non-locality requires it, and that quantum mechanics is consistent with it. & QM has ALWAYS been right, wherever tested. <br /><br />THAT's why the issue is SO important. IF quantum tunneling CAN exceed light speed, then Einstein was wrong, and that's exactly what is probably the case. <br /></font><br /><br />If the wave/particle was moving in the same dimension, then I would agree with the possibility of FTL movement. However, it's not. It's moving in all dimensions at the same time (however many dimensions there are). Everything else that you've stated, was quantumly correct <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> .<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The quantum processes do NOT simply disappear as we go from atoms to molecules. [...] Physicists are trying to find out at what scale sizes AND CONDITIONS in terms of mass, distances, etc. quantum processes cancel out, and where they begin, to any measurable probability. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I didn't say they 'dissapear', on the contrary I have outlined how they are smaller and smaller as you go to bigger structures and become negligible in our everyday macroscopic world, I said that those effects do not simply add up in particle assemblies and I tried to say that for example atom while it exhibits those quantum effects, they are not atom's properties per se but are derived from its constituent particles that have those effects, i.e, atom as such doesn't have its own quantum properties except those that derive from its constituent elementary particles...<br /><br />I don't know about any 'canceling' of quantum processes on any level of structure, whatever gave you the idea, just because we don't see quantum effects when we throw golf balls about doesn't mean they are not there, therefore some assumption about canceling is wholy unwarranted and is bad science IMO<br /><br />the quantum effects are almost certainly existing on macro level only they are so fine as to be undetectable and do not manifest themselves (to our inadequate measuring that is), same as it is with every other similar phenomenon in physics, like there are special relativistic effects in our ordinary everyday world around us - they do not cancel out (vanish) at some given speed, and going the other way in scale, gravitational effects do not cancel out at some scale, even atomic particles are subject to gravitation which works across all scales as far as science figured out, so WHY should QM effects be different, if anything the assumption should be that it is not and that those effects simply diminish to unmeasurable levels when we talk abou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Use of the terms 'delocalization' is not a scientific usage. [...] <br />The visual diagrams are of electrons existing in clouds around a nucleus, at positions consistent with center of their wave function, most highly probable positions. Electrons do NOT orbit atoms, they are maintained at their levels by the Pauli exclusion principles and complex interations with each other and the nucleus. thus the standing wave formations distinctive of each element electron levels.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />not sure anymore if you are still responding here to my post since I hope I didn't talk about 'orbits' or electrons in atoms and how did I deserve that capitalized 'NOT'<br /><br />/edit: I believe now you assumed orbits because I talked about 'force bound relationship' but I meant that quite generally, whatever is going on in that cloud of probabilities or of smeared electrons or whatever, something is holding it there around nucleus, it is obvious that some force bound relationship is at work there although we can safely rule out those orbits I would agree with that<br /><br />I could point out that 'clouds' is not very scientific usage term either and your cloud I call delocalized electron or smeared electron - BTW I believe in actual physical spreading of electrons, i.e., actual physical delocalization of electrons where others might talk about clouds of (mathematical) probabilities (which is patent bumbling)<br /><br />that is not any standard view TBS but I give a damn about standard views and offical terminology, your offical wording scientists are now stuck for half a century or more and are bumbling old men about to kick off with no results showing behind them, so<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>3) I see a lot of people talking about particles. It was my understanding that the Particle/Wave debate wasn’t settled yet.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />that is pure convenience that talk about particles and it is not going to go out of fashion anytime soon, try it yourself without using this terminology and see<br /><br />what is not settled is the understanding of that duality but its existence has been established (as steve said), actually one can't talk about settling when nobody has any clue whatever when it comes to physical understanding of it<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I guess I am a cave man as well, but could someone explain what an ansibel is?<br /><br />Thanks in advance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Well, I'll say this much for your quantum mechanics theory:<br /><br />At least it's priesthood isn't dangerous like the global warming theory's worshipers. <br /><br />I thank everyone for their input but I think this thread has exhausted it's utility.<br /><br />Moderator could you close this thread down? Thanks.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Ianke: I guess I am a cave man as well, but could someone explain what an ansibel is?<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />A name coined to Ursula Le Guin for a faster-than-light "radio" (instant communication).<br /><br />EDIT: Arh, the name is "ansible". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>
Zero Point Energy. That is what i have thought for sometimes, space is a form of energy. Else where space came from? answer: far far away, at the border of universe, heat and light create time and space so that our universe can expand. So, to warp space, we must do the reversal of heat and light. Then we can go warpppppppppppp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Thanks for the lesson and the link. Sorry about the typo. I did get the spelling from your post. No harm no fowl? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
Watch SpaceX Dragon cargo capsule depart the ISS today- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram