Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

goober wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 00:07

Something actually travels through "space" at faster than the speed of light? Or does it blink out of existence one place and come into existence at another within a timespan that makes it appear as though it is travelling faster than the speed of light? Can you then transmit information FTL too?

Unfortunately no- it isn't exactly travelling through space faster than light. Generally it has to be passing through a 'barrier' that classically it couldn't usually cross (at the quantum level it is generally a strong EM field or somesuch). So it is more of the blinking out of existance and reappearing case (even though it doesn't actually blink out of existance as such. There is a finite probability that it can exist on the other side of the barrier [due to its wave function] and, as such, it sometimes just appears on the other side of the barrier. What is odd about the whole thing is that this teleportation doesn't appear to happen instantaneously :S).

Yes. They have successfully transmitted one of Mozart's symphonies over the Yellow River (?) in China at 2.7 times the speed of light. And information is MUCH easier than matter- since it is capable of being encoded in a light beam.

BTW: Nice to see another person from Aussie land. I stalk the area known as Adelaide .

[Updated on: Sun, 10 June 2007 05:34]

Report message to a moderator

jabbawocky wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 05:29

Yes. They have successfully transmitted one of Mozart's symphonies over the Yellow River (?) in China at 2.7 times the speed of light. And information is MUCH easier than matter- since it is capable of being encoded in a light beam.

Information that was actually decoded FTL too? I ask because, while that so called "spooky action at a distance" may be FTL, I seem to recall that to take advantage of such, the information required to do so must still travel at a maximum of LS.

Although having said that, if the measurements of LS (I'm referring to your previous post on this) have actually confirmed to be different in different directions, doesn't that mean that there is some preferred frame of reference and that all the relativity stuff will have to be thrown out and only used as a very good approximation?

Hmmm. Now wasn't a metre defined as a fraction of the speed of light at some stage? So does that mean the definition of a metre is now defunct? Also, aren't there some constants do do with electric and magnetic permitivity or something like that defined in terms of LS?

Regardless. Since our the laws of own universe are still being refined and argued over it seems that it is not unreasonable for us to want to do the same with those of the stars universe

Quote:

BTW: Nice to see another person from Aussie land. I stalk the area known as Adelaide .

Not from originally. I'm of the recently naturalised variety. Now a banana bender on the gold coast

[Updated on: Sun, 10 June 2007 09:04]

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Information that was actually decoded FTL too? I ask because, while that so called "spooky action at a distance" may be FTL, I seem to recall that to take advantage of such, the information required to do so must still travel at a maximum of LS.

Smart cookie, this one is . Decoding still took the usual time needed for this kind of decoding but, as you suggested, according to information theory- information CAN NOT be transmitted FTL. The interesting thing about tunnelling the info THROUGH something is that it isn't really travelling FTL- because, as far as the universe (ie; information theory. Sneaky eh?) is concerned, the information carrying light (and thus the information) ALREADY existed on the other side of the barrier (but not instantaneously). Yes, it is a bit of a brainf**k to get around.

Quote:

Although having said that, if the measurements of LS (I'm referring to your previous post on this) have actually confirmed to be different in different directions, doesn't that mean that there is some preferred frame of reference and that all the relativity stuff will have to be thrown out and only used as a very good approximation? Hmmm. Now wasn't a metre defined as a fraction of the speed of light at some stage? So does that mean the definition of a metre is now defunct? Also, aren't there some constants do do with electric and magnetic permitivity or something like that defined in terms of LS?

Well no. First off- the experiments have suggested that LS varies in different directions but, like ALL scientific theories, it will never be classified as being 'confirmed'. There IS compelling evidence for LS variations in different directions though . Sorry, shouldn't play so much with semantics I know *shakes head sadly*.

Anyway, back to the point. Relativity WORKS- so there is NO reason to through it out yet. The variation of LS is only 400m/s in different directions which is VERY small when you compare it with the 299,792,458m/s that is the generally accepted value of LS. All this suggests is that light should NOT be used as the ULTIMATE frame of reference("FoR"), but an arbitary value could be assigned to a new frame of reference- say... 300,000,000m/s? Eitherway, there is an alternative theory of relativity that seems to produce the same results and also takes into account the variations in light speed. In this theory (which I personally distrust- I'm a determinist by nature) instead of using light, it uses SPACE itself as the "FoR". In a way, it has reawakened the good ol' days of the lumniferious aeyther and has space as not an absence of matter, but as a strange quantum foam lattice that flows (hence the change in LS).

Yes, the metre in terms of LS is defunct, but the platinum rod, kept at a steady 24 degrees Celcius in France, remains the same size. Thank god for those dastedly frence (with apologies to the frence types who read this).

Actually the electric and magnetic permitivity constants CALCULATED LS, not the other way round. Sure they might need to be tweaked a bit- maybe add a small error to them. Say about 0.00013% or so? Nothing really that big considering everyone automatically rounds off at 3 significant figures . MAN that's a lotta writing. I'ma gonna go sleep now

Report message to a moderator

This must be about the best explanation I've ever read about why you can near-instantaneously send a big bad heavy Battleship to a too far destination thru a too small Gate and sometimes have it disappear in thin space.

Report message to a moderator

jabbawocky wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 09:58

Well no. First off- the experiments have suggested that LS varies in different directions but, like ALL scientific theories, it will never be classified as being 'confirmed'. There IS compelling evidence for LS variations in different directions though . Sorry, shouldn't play so much with semantics I know *shakes head sadly*.

I was using 'confirmed' in the sense that the experiments had been repeated with the same results sufficiently often that it would convince other scientists that LS was variable in different directions.

Quote:

Anyway, back to the point. Relativity WORKS- so there is NO reason to through it out yet.

We haven't thrown out Newtonian mechanics. It works too for the tasks its used for. Clearly Relativity will occupy a similar position. Besides, I thought that Relativity was recognised to be an interim model along with quantuma mechanics until something comes along that encompasses both.

Quote:

The variation of LS is only 400m/s in different directions which is VERY small when you compare it with the 299,792,458m/s that is the generally accepted value of LS. All this suggests is that light should NOT be used as the ULTIMATE frame of reference("FoR"), but an arbitary value could be assigned to a new frame of reference- say... 300,000,000m/s? Eitherway, there is an alternative theory of relativity that seems to produce the same results and also takes into account the variations in light speed. In this theory (which I personally distrust- I'm a determinist by nature) instead of using light, it uses SPACE itself as the "FoR". In a way, it has reawakened the good ol' days of the lumniferious aeyther and has space as not an absence of matter, but as a strange quantum foam lattice that flows (hence the change in LS).

400 m/s difference is significant if the experimental error is only +- 25 m/s say. While if the experimental error is in excess of +- 400m/s why are we having this conversation?

As to quantum foam (can you shave with it being the most important question to mankind?) why does it prohibit determinism?

Quote:

Yes, the metre in terms of LS is defunct, but the platinum rod, kept at a steady 24 degrees Celcius in France, remains the same size. Thank god for those dastedly frence (with apologies to the frence types who read this).

Isn't there a fundamental unit of distance? Why not define the metre in terms of that?

Quote:

Actually the electric and magnetic permitivity constants CALCULATED LS, not the other way round. Sure they might need to be tweaked a bit- maybe add a small error to them. Say about 0.00013% or so? Nothing really that big considering everyone automatically rounds off at 3 significant figures . MAN that's a lotta writing. I'ma gonna go sleep now

Vague memories returning: IIRC, weren't those constants defined to be particular values for a vacuum, hence giving rise to constant LS? Hence, if you want them to fluctuate doesn't that require the underlying nature of a vacuum to fluctuate too?

Finally, perhaps you can answer a quetsion for me. Does energy have inertia?

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

400 m/s difference is significant if the experimental error is only +- 25 m/s say. While if the experimental error is in excess of +- 400m/s why are we having this conversation?

I honestly don't know what the experimental error of LS is, mainly due to the length of a metre being redefined in terms of LS. Kinda makes it hard once you do that.

Quote:

As to quantum foam (can you shave with it being the most important question to mankind?) why does it prohibit determinism?

Nah, it isn't really an important question at all but I'm one of those crazies who HAS to understand a system. Quantum foam is, by its very nature, random. And a truely random system defies determinism (by definition).

Quote:

Isn't there a fundamental unit of distance? Why not define the metre in terms of that?

Yes, there is THEORETICALLY a fundamental unit of distance, a planck length- which is 6.626x10^-34m (which, according to string theory, is the length of a piece of string ). So I guess it could be possible to define a metre in terms of that.

Quote:

Vague memories returning: IIRC, weren't those constants defined to be particular values for a vacuum, hence giving rise to constant LS? Hence, if you want them to fluctuate doesn't that require the underlying nature of a vacuum to fluctuate too?

Yep, those particular values exist only in a vacuum, and need to be redefined in different mediums. Well, according to the newer theory, the nature of space (and hence a vacuum) fluctuates- it flows towards massive objects (which is how it describes gravity).

Quote:

Finally, perhaps you can answer a quetsion for me. Does energy have inertia?

Uh oh... This is one question that is gonna be very VERY hard to answer. What do you MEAN by energy? Do you mean light, potential, heat, or kinetic? The 'purest' form of energy, in my perspective, light, DOES have inertia. But I honestly CAN'T be 100% sure for the other types. Heat and kinetic would (because they are both the same thing in a way: heat is the vibrations of atoms) but potential energy is a mystery in general. I'm not sure if that really answers your question, sorry .

[Updated on: Sun, 10 June 2007 21:31]

Report message to a moderator

jabbawocky wrote on Sun, 10 June 2007 21:27

Quantum foam is, by its very nature, random. And a truely random system defies determinism (by definition).

The quantum foam may be defined as random in the sense that quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, but has it actually been demonstrated that there cannot be an, as yet, undetermined deterministic theory that gives the appearance, at the "crude" experimental accuracy we are able to achieve currently, of being probabilistic?

Goober wrote

Finally, perhaps you can answer a question for me. Does energy have inertia? Quote: Uh oh... This is one question that is gonna be very VERY hard to answer. What do you MEAN by energy? Do you mean light, potential, heat, or kinetic? The 'purest' form of energy, in my perspective, light, DOES have inertia. But I honestly CAN'T be 100% sure for the other types. Heat and kinetic would (because they are both the same thing in a way: heat is the vibrations of atoms) but potential energy is a mystery in general. I'm not sure if that really answers your question, sorry .

Let me rephrase my question then.

If energy, the capacity to do work (whatever form), and matter are interchangeable then does energy only have inertia in matter form?

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

The quantum foam may be defined as random in the sense that quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, but has it actually been demonstrated that there cannot be an, as yet, undetermined deterministic theory that gives the appearance, at the "crude" experimental accuracy we are able to achieve currently, of being probabilistic?

As far as physics is concerned- it is a truely random system. I, however, don't believe that and believe something more aklin to chaos theory- that the randomness that is seen is, in fact, part of a greater deterministic system and only APPEARS to be random (mainly due to the inability of modern tech to 'see' at the atomic scale). It is the same with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle- modern scientists believe it is the very nature of the universe when, if you think about it, it is only really the nature of the measuring devices. It makes perfect MATHEMATICAL sense that you can't know both the position and momentum of a particle but really, it just doesn't make logical sense.

Quote:

If energy, the capacity to do work (whatever form), and matter are interchangeable then does energy only have inertia in matter form?

Oh how I hate having to give definate yes or no answers. Well, if I must stand on some thin ice here I guess I will take a punt at 'no'- energy does have inertia. Oh, how the scientific community is going to kill me if I'm wrong . Hmm... thank god for the anonominity of the internet

[Updated on: Mon, 11 June 2007 00:36]

Report message to a moderator

jabbawocky wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 00:26

Quote: The quantum foam may be defined as random in the sense that quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, but has it actually been demonstrated that there cannot be an, as yet, undetermined deterministic theory that gives the appearance, at the "crude" experimental accuracy we are able to achieve currently, of being probabilistic? As far as physics is concerned - it is a truely random system.

Isn't that the Copenhagen interpretation? It strikes me that a number of folks baulk at such a view, but cannot deny the utility of quantum mechanics and simply stick with the standard mantra. Which is fine until something "better" comes along.

Quote:

I, however, don't believe that and believe something more aklin to chaos theory- that the randomness that is seen is, in fact, part of a greater deterministic system and only APPEARS to be random (mainly due to the inability of modern tech to 'see' at the atomic scale).

I believe that is what I was suggesting. Although it may be that we need to be able to 'see' at the Planck scale.

Quote:

It is the same with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle- modern scientists believe it is the very nature of the universe when, if you think about it, it is only really the nature of the measuring devices. It makes perfect MATHEMATICAL sense that you can't know both the position and momentum of a particle but really, it just doesn't make logical sense.

My understanding of this seems to be different to yours:

It's not the measuring device ... its the fact that you are measuring that is the crux of the matter. To measure you must interact with the system you are measuring thereby disturbing the system. Hence, HUP is fundamental to the nature of the universe if you are measuring it.

You appear to be telling me you think it is possible to acquire information about action i.e. momentum and position or energy and time without measuring them.

Furthermore, if you accept the 2.7 times the speed of light experiments that is accomplished via 'tunnelling' aren't you implicitly accepting Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princple? Or are you suggesting that HUP is a manifestation of your underlying non-linear deterministic (i.e. chaotic) system? Now if your system requires information concerning action you still have the same problem ... you can't predict what will happen because you cannot in principle measure both elements of it.

Quote:

Quote: If energy, the capacity to do work (whatever form), and matter are interchangeable then does energy only have inertia in matter form? Oh how I hate having to give definate yes or no answers. Well, if I must stand on some thin ice here I guess I will take a punt at 'no'- energy does have inertia. Oh, how the scientific community is going to kill me if I'm wrong . Hmm... thank god for the anonominity of the internet

That's certainly my gut response. An excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on inertia:

"The logical conclusion of Special Relativity was that if mass exhibits the principle of inertia, then inertia must also apply to energy as well"

Looks like the ice will hold you this time

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

My understanding of this seems to be different to yours: It's not the measuring device ... its the fact that you are measuring that is the crux of the matter. To measure you must interact with the system you are measuring thereby disturbing the system. Hence, HUP is fundamental to the nature of the universe if you are measuring it. You appear to be telling me you think it is possible to acquire information about action i.e. momentum and position or energy and time without measuring them. Furthermore, if you accept the 2.7 times the speed of light experiments that is accomplished via 'tunnelling' aren't you implicitly accepting Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princple? Or are you suggesting that HUP is a manifestation of your underlying non-linear deterministic (i.e. chaotic) system? Now if your system requires information concerning action you still have the same problem ... you can't predict what will happen because you cannot in principle measure both elements of it.

Yes it is true that the very act of observation does change the system, but, as you clearly already know, this is due to the method in which we actually come about measuring the system. The particle streams in which we use to measure the system are made up of particles which can easily modify the system- its like using a machine gun to observe a ping pong ball. I suspect, however, that there could be an alternative method of measuring the system by either using minimally interactive particles (Higgs Bosons, Gravitons or Tachyons- if they exist of course ) or, as physics seems to be going, finding yet another SMALLER particle and using them.

Also, due to my deterministic beliefs- I believe that you don't actually need to measure a system to calculate its current position- as long as you have a previous state that it was in. However this leads to a circular argument, and so I only state it as a matter of interest.

I don't actually believe that it will ever be possible for humans to ever understand the universe (unfortunately I am driven to try and discover it- leading to a rather unfortunate paradox on my behalf), because, as humans, we are located within the system in which we are trying to understand. The only way that I believe we could ever understand this system is if we manage to take an 'outside' view of it because while we are in the system, we must obey its rules and thus are unable to truely see what's going on. As such, I believe that every particle has both a fixed position and a fixed momentum EVEN if I can never physically detect them both. As you correctly pointed out, the acceptence of the entire tunnelling phenomena, the wave nature of both light & matter, and the very probability nature of quantum physics totally does away with the determinism. This is where I say that quantum is a good model for what it does- it predicts the correct results in a number of situations but I totally refute it for what it predicts on the very nature of the universe. Thus I suspect that there is something else at play in the whole system (explaining all the aforementioned phenomena) but I honestly don't know what it is- all I know is that it has to provide the same answers as quantum but with a deterministic nature. I may, in my deterministic beliefs, be quite wrong- but until someone can prove 100% that this is NOT a deterministic universe I will continue with my 'quest' to understand it as such.

Report message to a moderator

jabbawocky wrote on Mon, 11 June 2007 20:21

Yes it is true that the very act of observation does change the system, but, as you clearly already know, this is due to the method in which we actually come about measuring the system. The particle streams in which we use to measure the system are made up of particles which can easily modify the system- its like using a machine gun to observe a ping pong ball. I suspect, however, that there could be an alternative method of measuring the system by either using minimally interactive particles (Higgs Bosons, Gravitons or Tachyons- if they exist of course ) or, as physics seems to be going, finding yet another SMALLER particle and using them.

Hmmmm. Neutrinos are minimally interactive, but don't they ultimately generate flashes of detectable radiation when they do interact with matter?

However, regardless of how small your particle or minimally interactive, my understanding of HUP was that it had been demonstrated that no matter how you measured them, the product of the errors of the two components of action measured always had to be greater than a particular, extremely small, value [h/(2*pi) IIRC].

Furthermore, you have the problem of the double-slit experiment. If you send through only a single photon at a time with sufficient time between them that no two separate photons interfere with each other, you still end up with an interference pattern. I thought that HUP was intimately tied to this phenomenon.

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Hmmmm. Neutrinos are minimally interactive, but don't they ultimately generate flashes of detectable radiation when they do interact with matter?

I personally have little understanding of neurtinos, except that they are incredibly difficult to detect and are a result of neutron decay. The decay path produces a proton, an electron and an electron anti-neutrino (so the conservation of momentum, and the conservation of matter is conserved). As such, an anti-neutrino *should* (not 100% sure though) decay into a gamma photon upon interaction with 'normal' matter but I honestly don't know that particular decay path. Ultimately though, it would cause (as far as my logic and my limited knowledge in the area goes) similar effects to the system as if we just used photons//electrons in the first place (due to the gamma photon interacting with the surrounding system and the degregation to the system due to small amounts of it being converted into photons).

Quote:

However, regardless of how small your particle or minimally interactive, my understanding of HUP was that it had been demonstrated that no matter how you measured them, the product of the errors of the two components of action measured always had to be greater than a particular, extremely small, value [h/(2*pi) IIRC].

Ahh... h-bar {h/(2*pi)}- how I love that number. But that is beside the point. This is where modern physics and I have a little disagreement- I believe that this result arises purely due to the nature of our measuring devices and our mathematics rather than it being the very nature of the universe itself. It is, in my opinion, a kind of emergent behaviour rather than a fundemental principle of the universe. Either way, it is a law that is quite difficult to prove WITHOUT using the devices that we currently use- as the law was modelled upon experimental evidence and thus is confirmed by any experimental evidence. It is like being born colour blind and thus concluding that there is no such thing as colours- purely because your measuring devices (your eyes in this case) are not up to the job of actually describing what is there.

Quote:

Furthermore, you have the problem of the double-slit experiment. If you send through only a single photon at a time with sufficient time between them that no two separate photons interfere with each other, you still end up with an interference pattern. I thought that HUP was intimately tied to this phenomenon.

Actually that is purely due to the wave nature of light. It is best, at this point, to stop thinking about light as photons because at the moment there is NO model for how the time-lapse double slit experiment (TLDSE) works with the particle model of light (though I would rather like one ). Basically what is happening in the TLDSE is that the single photon is interacting//interfering with ITSELF. Yes, even looking at that last sentence is gonna raise some inconsistancies- how is a single particle meant to cause interference with itself even though it is a single particle? Yeah... best not ask that question because it is one that science has yet to answer- it is yet another case of 'just accept it and move on'. Science has THOUSANDS of these little problems- like WHY must momentum be conserved?; Whatis gravity and why does it hang around mass (and relativistic objects, of course )?; and what the hell exactly IS energy? Move along... nothing to see here... Either way, it is suffice to say that the TLDSE has nothing to do with the HUP. Now I really must get back to that damn philosophy paper due tomorrow

[Updated on: Wed, 13 June 2007 11:38]

Report message to a moderator