The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How fast do the fundamental laws of physics exert themselves?  (Read 2263 times)

Offline eltial

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
If I had a machine that could turn off a fundamental law of physics, like weak nuclear force or gravity, and pressed the button, would this propagate out at the speed of light, or take affect instantly? Keep in mind that I am talking about removal of the law, not just if, for example, the sun disappeared. I believe that would happen at the speed of light.
« Last Edit: 16/01/2014 03:35:34 by chris »


 

Offline burning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Well, it's not really clear what it would mean to turn off a fundamental law of physics, so any answer would be highly speculative and entirely dependent on untestable assumptions.  With the laws we've got right now, information about what happens at one location can not be transmitted to another location at faster than light speed.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
If I had a machine that could turn off a fundamental law of physics, like weak nuclear force or gravity, and pressed the button, would this propagate out at the speed of light, or take affect instantly? Keep in mind that I am talking about removal of the law, not just if, for example, the sun disappeared. I believe that would happen at the speed of light.
Do you think such a machine could exist in physics? I don't think so...
As a consequence your is not a question about physics, maybe about philosophy.
Then, a phylosopher could answer: "it depends on the laws. If there is the law that all laws cannot go faster than 1 m/s, that's their speed :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I think all constants etc communicate at 'c', or slower? It's a 'siderereal universe' after all, in my thoughts :) so it better keep under 'c'. But it depends on what sort of 'communication' you're thinking of. A entanglement do not obey 'c', but if you want to stuff it with 'meaningful communication' able to be understood by another observer, far away from the one setting this entanglement up, the 'code' for unraveling this communication first need to travel at 'c'.

Anyone arguing against that will get a headache. It's a cosmic punishment.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The interesting thing with this idea though, is that once the code is set up, all 'communication' afterwards the first 'set up' should become 'instant'.

After all, a code is able to be recycled, isn't it?
==

Actually, this is trickier than what one first might think, as it is possible to pass a unique code once, and then, if you like, repeat that precise one. But I don't think it is possible to give out a Morse code, as the entanglement you measure on has a 50/50 probability to be up or down (its spin). To get to a working Morse code you first need a way to 'know' beforehand what it will be.

So, no, not really..
=

Maybe if you imagine a 'row' of entangled photons, letting them create a pattern 'code', that then no matter their spin, just measuring the pattern, gives you a message??? Don't see how to create it, but maybe it would be possible? But I expect it to be 'forbidden', one way or another.
=

A (first entangled at its origin) Bose Einstein condensate(s) traveling under 'c' (in some rocket), then measuring on 'row after row', once at its destination, at some agreed on time interval :) Would make for a nice SF.
« Last Edit: 16/01/2014 17:34:33 by yor_on »
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
  • Thanked: 247 times
    • View Profile
Quote
a machine that could turn off a fundamental law of physics

I know this is a speculative question, but if a law of physics were that easy to turn off, it would cease to be a fundamental law...
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Nah, it won't work, if you don't know what spin it has beforehand (rows). The problem is that they are no light bulbs getting 'on and off'. Even thought they are entangled you have no way to know which of them, unless you agree on measuring just in some specific order. And you have no idea of whether they was supposed to be one way or another (spin). Awhh.
=

And yes, I got a headache from it too.
Beware the cosmos..
« Last Edit: 16/01/2014 18:19:00 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Although, and this is highly controversial, you find a way to let them transport 'energy' .Seems as some argue that this is possible. If it is you could imagine, using just lightbulbs :) set to a certain energy. Then you at your origin, 'measure' on a row, in some pattern, letting some be. As you measure you transfer a energy to the entanglement that must be replicated at the reciever. The receiver then connect the lightbulbs to the photons, well 'theoretically', with those photons having already been measured at the origin now containing a excess of energy, lightening them up, while the ones not being measured at the origin being 'empty' and dark.

See, no headache !!

Well, damn it, it comes backkk.
=

Actually this is worthy of a universe on its own, filled with mighty space vessels, the size of Manhattan, majestically glowing, from all that excess energy generated in measuring those entangled 'photons'. I sincerely hope someone will make a space opera from this one, I for one, will be pleased reading it..
« Last Edit: 16/01/2014 18:53:11 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The point to it, from my perspective, is that even if you assume the conservation laws to stand you still need to 'lend' this excess produced in the entanglement, or assume that if you send in 1 it splits into .5 at both 'ends'. If you assume it to lend you need to answer from where. And the optimistic answer there should be 'the vacuum'. That, assuming us to use this idea for space vessels energy consumption :) Will then lead to a definition of a 'depleted vacuum' ::))

Kind'a love that one.
Another Space Opera in the making me thinks.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums