Starship Asterisk*

by **Wayne** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:11 am

StarstruckKid wrote: Then how do we ever move beyond existing theory? If everything has to happen within existing theory, doesn't that preclude being able to move beyond it, by definition? Would you say that relativity is 'within the bounds' of Newtonian mechanics?

Thing is, everything has to happen within existing theory for as far as that theory applies. 1+1 does not suddenly become equal to 3 because we discovered some new mathematics. Newton's 9.8ms^-2 did not double when we discovered General Relativity. Water didn't begin starting fires (unless you like group I alkali metals) when we discovered Molecular Orbital theory.

New theories are refinements of old ones, not replacements. You can't replace an old theory without incorporating it. You can send a rocket to Mars using Einstein, sure. You can also use Newton because Einstein's theories are a superset of Newton's to correct Newton's old theories where they weren't working well.

You have to do this by finding the area where the old theories aren't working well. Turns out that close to and at the speed of light, Special Relativity indeed does apply and works very well indeed; We see time dilation, we see increased masses. No new theory is going to change what actually happens in reality. Any challenge to Relativity is going to come on the quantum scale, where the two frameworks don't work very well at all, it is not going to come at the "close to c" scale, where they work exceptionally well.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:40 am

StarstruckKid wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Well, a thought experiment must be defined within the bounds of existing theory
Then how do we ever move beyond existing theory? If everything has to happen within existing theory, doesn't that preclude being able to move beyond it, by definition? Would you say that relativity is 'within the bounds' of Newtonian mechanics?

I don't know of any thought experiments involved in developing GR that inherently violated Newtonian mechanics. If a thought experiment requires that you throw out current theory that is well supported, it probably isn't a good or useful thought experiment. Now the result of a thought experiment may lead to new theory, or show weaknesses in old theory. But that isn't the same thing at all as an experiment that requires current theory to be wrong just to be considered. Then you just get "what if" questions, like "what if something could go faster than c". These are usually not profitable questions.

But I'd say that extending the analogy of how c relates to the speed of sound to the possibility of something which is to c as c is to speed-of-sound is within the bounds of existing theory, in so far as the unknown ever can be.

I'd say the analogy is an extremely poor one. The speed of sound and the speed of light have nothing in common by any physical theory. Zip. You might as well compare the speed of light to the speed of a rumor. To make a useful physical analogy, there needs to be a physical connection.

by **StarstruckKid** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:31 am

Chris Peterson wrote:Well, a thought experiment must be defined within the bounds of existing theory

Then how do we ever move beyond existing theory? If everything has to happen within existing theory, doesn't that preclude being able to move beyond it, by definition? Would you say that relativity is 'within the bounds' of Newtonian mechanics?

Not to say that any and everything is a suitable conjecture. But I'd say that extending the analogy of how c relates to the speed of sound to the possibility of something which is to c as c is to speed-of-sound is within the bounds of existing theory, in so far as the unknown ever can be. Green fairies, on the other hand, is an idea out of left field, not based on what we already know about.

Just wonderin'

by **swainy (tc)** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:22 am

swainy (tc) wrote:Sub particle frequency? These guys are communicating Huh? How? What causes the Randomness? What can we not see? Or detect? Some boffin will work this out. I can,t wait. Some very interesting posts guys, Thanks.

On That Note, What is the maximum we can accelerate 'A' Quantum Hubble Telescope "2" (To,) using the gravity of the planets? If we could have a quantum Hubble Telescope 2, we would need it, to go faster than light to peer into the unknown. Huh? So if we could solve the quantum tech, What would be the point?

tc

by **swainy (tc)** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:37 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:No. It has been pretty well shown that you can't use quantum entanglement to actually transmit information. It doesn't matter whether you want to associate binary with spin, or use some other encoding. Trying to send information effectively results in random results.

Sub particle frequency? These guys are communicating Huh? How? What causes the Randomness? What can we not see? Or detect? Some boffin will work this out. I can,t wait. Some very interesting posts guys, Thanks.

tc

by **Beyond** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:58 pm

Henning Makholm; you seemed to have asked and answered your own question in 14 words, not counting the (expletive). The and, or and nor gates was part of a military introduction to computers(i was in the signal corp.)so when you mentioned transmitting 1's and 0's, that just naturally popped out. Don't be concerned about it, all old dusty information usually turns into nonsense and just blows away in the wind - never to return.

by **Henning Makholm** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:34 pm

Ok, what the (expletive) is going on here? A little maze of twisty non-sequiturs.

1. There is nothing special or magical about the symbols 0 and 1 for communications. What you need to communicate is just for one end (the sender) to do something that makes some difference at the other end (receiver). Preferably it would make a difference in a fully reliable way, but as long as it's better than random it's just a matter of well-known communications engineering to do it many times and bundle the results into a useful communications channel. Making a difference just means that at receiver you can tell the difference between something happening and something else happening. Communications engineers will typically choose to call "someting" 0 and "something else" 1 (or vice versa), because that's how their jargon goes, but that is completely irrelevant for how the thing they build actually works.

2. Logic gates are used to design machines that process information. It is not necessary for an information-processing machine to consist of logic gates; it's just how people seem to find it easiest and most convenient to create them. Furthermore, mere transport of information does not require that the information is processed, so even allowing for engineering convenience, there is no intrinsic connection between logic gates and communication. (Practical communication schemes will often process the information that is communicated, as a side effect that needs to be corrected for with a counter-processing at one of the ends -- which may or may not be designed using logic gates).

3. To presume that the fundamental constituents of a communications scheme would need to "have" logic gates is just ... just wrong.

4. There are several primitive sets of gates that can be used to build any logic circuit. One such set is {AND, OR, NOT}, which can even be reduced to {AND,NOT} or {OR,NOT} by De Morgan's laws. Another set consists of just {NOR}; any logic function can be implemented by a circuit of NOR gates.

5. There is completely no way for "The nor gate would not allow any 1's or 0's at all" to be interpreted as a true statement.

6. Nonwithstanding all of the above, entanglement cannot be used as a communication method. When you make a measurement at one end of the system, you get a random result, but which random result you get influences which results you can get if you later measure the other end of the system. This cannot be used to communicate because there is nothing you can do a the first end of the system to influence which random result you get.

by **Beyond** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:05 am

bystander wrote:
beyond wrote:I don't think that particles have the three gates needed to send 1's and 0's . That would be the - and, or and nor gates.
Not sure what you mean by a NOR gate, but all logic gates can be built from AND, OR, and an inverter, NOT.

If you mean what I think you mean, (A NOR B) <=> ((NOT A) AND (NOT B)) <=> NOT (A OR B).
So, a NOR gate is an OR gate with an inverter on the output, or an AND gate with inverters on the inputs.

Bystander, the teaching of and-or-and nor gates is about 40 years old. The nor gate would not allow any 1's or 0's at all. For all i know now, they probably only use one "smart" gate for everything. But for the purposes of saying that you cannot transmit data via particles(at least in their normal state)it worked for me even though it was 40 years old. Thats also the extent of my knowledge of computer operation, except for the "target" function, that is.

by **bystander** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:38 am

beyond wrote:I don't think that particles have the three gates needed to send 1's and 0's . That would be the - and, or and nor gates.

Not sure what you mean by a NOR gate, but all logic gates can be built from AND, OR, and an inverter, NOT.

If you mean what I think you mean, (A NOR B) <=> ((NOT A) AND (NOT B)) <=> NOT (A OR B).
So, a NOR gate is an OR gate with an inverter on the output, or an AND gate with inverters on the inputs.

by **Beyond** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:18 am

I don't think that particles have the three gates needed to send 1's and 0's . That would be the - and, or and nor gates.

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:03 am

swainy (tc) wrote:That's how your pc works Chris. 1's and 0's . Its either on or off. same, which could make instant Quantum Entanglement chat, galaxy wide? or help us peer into the unknown?

No. It has been pretty well shown that you can't use quantum entanglement to actually transmit information. It doesn't matter whether you want to associate binary with spin, or use some other encoding. Trying to send information effectively results in random results.

by **swainy (tc)** » Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:01 am

bystander wrote:It is my understanding that Quantum Entanglement does not necessarily involve electrons, nor even pairs. It is a property of a system involving two or more like quantum particles and/or anti-particles (photons, protons, atoms, etc) such that the state of any one particle in the system can not be fully described without the consideration of all the particles in the system. That is to say, if the state of one particle is known, the states of all particles in the entangled system are known, regardless of the distance between particles.

Interesting that. Cheers Bystander. Gimme somot to think about that has. Nice One.

Chris Peterson wrote: swainy (tc) wrote:1's And 0's Chris Its moving 1 Its not moving 0. How did you get this message from me? Was it not 1's And 0's ?

?????

That's how your pc works Chris. 1's and 0's . Its either on or off. same, which could make instant Quantum Entanglement chat, galaxy wide? or help us peer into the unknown?

tc
tc

by **Chris Peterson** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:42 pm

swainy (tc) wrote:1's And 0's Chris Its moving 1 Its not moving 0. How did you get this message from me? Was it not 1's And 0's ?

?????

by **bystander** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:28 pm

swainy (tc) wrote:Can some body please explain to me, how Quantum Entanglement Works I think it involves dual electrons, and those Electrons synchronized together, no matter how far apart they still move when the other moves. But How can they do this instantly? What connection do they still have?

It is my understanding that Quantum Entanglement does not necessarily involve electrons, nor even pairs. It is a property of a system involving two or more like quantum particles and/or anti-particles (photons, protons, atoms, etc) such that the state of any one particle in the system can not be fully described without the consideration of all the particles in the system. That is to say, if the state of one particle is known, the states of all particles in the entangled system are known, regardless of the distance between particles.

As to how this happens, Einstein derisively called it "spooky action at a distance". Way too deep for me and I didn't bring my waders.

by **swainy (tc)** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:24 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:There is no problem with things operating instantly over a distance as long as no information is transmitted- which happens to be the case here.

1's And 0's Chris Its moving 1 Its not moving 0. How did you get this message from me? Was it not 1's And 0's ?

tc

by **Chris Peterson** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:19 pm

swainy (tc) wrote:Can some body please explain to me, how Quantum Entanglement Works

Have you read the Wikipedia article on the subject? It's pretty good.

There is no problem with things operating instantly over a distance as long as no information is transmitted- which happens to be the case here.

by **swainy (tc)** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:36 pm

Henning Makholm wrote:Quantum entanglement

Can some body please explain to me, how Quantum Entanglement Works

I think it involves dual electrons, and those Electrons synchronized together, no matter how far apart they still move when the other moves. But How can they do this instantly? What connection do they still have? Thanks

tc

by **Henning Makholm** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:15 am

StarstruckKid wrote:My point was not about c versus the speed of light, or whether information can propagate faster than c;

Um, I fail to grasp the difference between "whether information can propagate faster than c" and the topic you aver to be discussing instead. Could you please explain more clearly why your speculation is not about "whether information can propagate faster than c"?

If you're merely speculating about an unknown effect that would propagate at or slower than c, then why are you doing it in this thread at all?

by **Chris Peterson** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:23 am

StarstruckKid wrote:My point was not about c versus the speed of light, or whether information can propagate faster than c; solid theory also says sound cannot travel faster that mach 1 in air, not to be too rigorous or to make that an analogy to c. It was, rather, to suggest, as a "thought experiment", that there may be some other mechanism that we are not aware of because neither we nor our existing instruments can detect it, and which is not addressed by the mathematics of relativity, that can 'bypass' or 'move through' space as we know it and is not bound by c, just as c is not bound by the speed of sound in air.

Well, a thought experiment must be defined within the bounds of existing theory. Otherwise, it has no meaning. And within current theory, information can't be transported faster than c. If you want to suggest something completely outside of theory, and which we are completely unaware of, you might as well suggest that information could be carried instantaneously by little green fairies.

Is it possible our fundamental ideas about relativity are wrong? Yes. Is it likely? No.

by **StarstruckKid** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:14 am

My point was not about c versus the speed of light, or whether information can propagate faster than c; solid theory also says sound cannot travel faster that mach 1 in air, not to be too rigorous or to make that an analogy to c. It was, rather, to suggest, as a "thought experiment", that there may be some other mechanism that we are not aware of because neither we nor our existing instruments can detect it, and which is not addressed by the mathematics of relativity, that can 'bypass' or 'move through' space as we know it and is not bound by c, just as c is not bound by the speed of sound in air.

Our forebears were unaware of most of the electromagnetic spectrum, and many well-educated people would have vehemently denied the possibility of its existence, because neither they nor the instruments available to them could detect it.

We have some anecdotal evidence of the phenomenon of telepathy, but we cannot reliably sense it, nor do we have instruments which can detect it, so it remains in the the realm of conjecture, and many smart and well-educated people will vehemently deny its possible existence. I don't claim to know myself. But I do know that when I was old enough to be learning about such things, what we now know as 'plate tectonics' was called 'continental drift' and was derided and scorned by, again, some very smart and well-educated people.

One thing we know for sure: we don't know what we don't know!

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:05 am

StarstruckKid wrote:The speed of sound in a medium such as air or water is the limit at which information can be transmitted from point A to point B, yet a beam of light can also pass 'through' the same medium at a much higher rate, leaving open the idea that some other mechanism could exceed the speed of light through the fabric of the cosmos.

No, solid theory sets c as the limit for information transfer. It is important to realize that c is not the speed of light. It is a universal constant that shows up in many places. It happens that one of its most obvious physical manifestations is that it defines the speed of light in a vacuum. That is, c defines the speed of light, not the other way around.

by **Henning Makholm** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:25 am

StarstruckKid wrote:What about 'quantum entanglement' and 'gravity waves'?

Gravity waves, as predicted by General Relativity, travel at speed c.

Quantum entanglement is what I speak about in my posts of August 2, above. As long as the fundamental theory satisfies Lorentz symmetry (which every quantum theory that makes a claim for being fundamental does), it is relatively straightforward (assuming one knows already how such theories work) to argue that entanglement cannot be used to send information faster than c.

We are stuck on light/electromagnetism because our senses and instruments can so easily detect it, but that does not mean no other transmission mechanism exists.

No, but special relativity still forbids information from travel faster than c. It does not depend on light, but can derived simply from considering how the spacetime differently moving inertial frames fit together.

The basic postulate of special relativity is that there is some speed that all inertial observers measure to be the same. This invariant speed, named c, turns out to be the fastest that information can meaningfully be imagined to travel. The fact that light happens to travel at speed c through vacuum is convenient for practical measurement, but the theory would work perfectly well without it.

by **StarstruckKid** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:36 am

What about 'quantum entanglement' and 'gravity waves'?

The speed of sound in a medium such as air or water is the limit at which information can be transmitted from point A to point B, yet a beam of light can also pass 'through' the same medium at a much higher rate, leaving open the idea that some other mechanism could exceed the speed of light through the fabric of the cosmos.

We are stuck on light/electromagnetism because our senses and instruments can so easily detect it, but that does not mean no other transmission mechanism exists.

For instance, the poorly understood (and largely unproven) phenomena of telepathy and 'astral projection' are difficult to explain as electromagnetic in nature.

by **Beyond** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:06 pm

I don't either. Somehow this conversation seems to have gone POOF into thin air. Maybe we should let it stay that way??

by **Henning Makholm** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:06 am

beyond wrote:Oh....ok. So do you think that photons could have at least two operating modes? One at the speed of light or slower and an instantaneous reaction mode no matter how long the photon length?

I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. I don't even have a good idea which statement of mine it is you're misunderstanding.

Starship Asterisk*

Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of light?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of light?

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig

Re: Can "cause & effect" travel faster than the speed of lig