Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: opportunity on 07/03/2018 09:53:21
-
The question here relates to the expansion of the universe, far far away...a long red-shift, parsec upon parsec. Apparently the ideas of relativity don't need to work there.
Just wondering, clearly then if the laws of relativity don't work out there, then time-reversal is not an issue beyond light speed is not an issue?
Some material to consider:
https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html
It seems the red-shift effect as we perceive it violates what we want to understand of relativity and it's fairly easy to then say, "well, clearly relativity doesn't work out there".....it's like the red-shift effect has more power of persuasion than the idea of the big bang.
-
Say we were inside a space craft that was pure energy and are therefore able to move at the speed of light. We look outside out energy craft's window, and based on the speed of light reference and special relativity, the universe appears to be a contained in a point-instant; speed of light POV.
After traveling, we reach our destination and put on the brakes. We decelerate from the speed of light, to the finite speed of the earth for a rendezvous. During the deceleration we look out the window and notice that the point-instant universe, we had been seeing, now appears to expand in space-time. We are decelerating from the speed of light, yet our universe appears to be expanding faster than the speed of light. Which is cause and which is affect?
-
The question here relates to the expansion of the universe, far far away...a long red-shift, parsec upon parsec. Apparently the ideas of relativity don't need to work there.
Some material to consider:
https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html
Who says ideas of relativity don’t work there?
Certainly not the article you quote.
Just wondering, clearly then if the laws of relativity don't work out there, then time-reversal is not an issue beyond light speed is not an issue?
...........
It seems the red-shift effect as we perceive it violates what we want to understand of relativity and it's fairly easy to then say, "well, clearly relativity doesn't work out there".....it's like the red-shift effect has more power of persuasion than the idea of the big bang.
Again why are you assuming the laws of relativity don't work out there?
Redshift does not violate what we understand of relativity.
Did you read the article?
Can you also explain what you mean by “work as a universal manifold?”
Say we were inside a space craft that was pure energy
Accepting that there is no such thing as pure energy.
Which is cause and which is affect?
Affect what?
-
Well pointed out Colin.
I should have said why "special relativity" had to be amended to "general relativity"....as per:
It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. But special relativity is a local law of physics. Or in other words, it's a law of local physics. That means that you will never, ever watch a rocket ship blast by your face faster than the speed of light. Local motion, local laws.
But a galaxy on the far side of the universe? That's the domain of general relativity, and general relativity says: who cares! That galaxy can have any speed it wants, as long as it stays way far away, and not up next to your face.
Yet should not local laws exist at the outer limits also? Regarding the universal manifold and the red-shift, it appears space as a substances "stretches" to accommodate for a red-shift that give rise to non-local laws allowing for the speed of light being exceeded?
-
Yet should not local laws exist at the outer limits also?
they do and they are the same as ours, but we are not there to take the local measurement.
Regarding the universal manifold and the red-shift, it appears space as a substances "stretches" to accommodate for a red-shift that give rise to non-local laws allowing for the speed of light being exceeded?
They are not really non-local laws. The problem is that velocity is only meaningful up close, what happens at these incredible distances can only be worked out using GR and that has always allowed light to travel faster than c even within our own solar sytem.
You still haven’t explained why you are introducing the term universal manifold into this question and what you mean by it.
-
Well, I'm avoiding using the term "spacetime" while dissecting relativity. I should say spacetime, yet I'm concerned about the idea of objects appearing to travel at a speed faster than light while in those regions local laws still need to apply. Does that suggest that someone many many light years away would see our reference as travelling faster than light? If its possible, then "spacetime" in between our reference and that greater outer reference carries something that violates its own speed.....so I'm using the term manifold (and not spacetime) to get some clarity on what's going on there with "spacetime".
-
The metric expansion of space, regardless of how quickly it occurs, doesn't carry information faster than light. That's the important part.
-
Yes, so technically space anywhere and everywhere in the universe from a frame of reference very very far away is expanding faster than light, including our own region of space.....and light doesnt contour to the metric of space.....yet it "is" considered to contour space regarding the red-shift effect mechanics.
-
Well, I'm avoiding using the term "spacetime" while dissecting relativity.
..so I'm using the term manifold (and not spacetime) to get some clarity on what's going on there with "spacetime".
Why avoid using spacetime?
How does using the term manifold give clarity in this situation??
I'm concerned about the idea of objects appearing to travel at a speed faster than light while in those regions local laws still need to apply.
Don’t be. Local laws apply locally ie when measured in that location, we are not local and not measuring locally.
Does that suggest that someone many many light years away would see our reference as travelling faster than light?
yes
If its possible, then "spacetime" in between our reference and that greater outer reference carries something that violates its own speed...
No
Yes, so technically space anywhere and everywhere in the universe from a frame of reference very very far away is expanding faster than light, including our own region of space...
Yes
..and light doesnt contour to the metric of space.
That sentence doesn’t make sense.
-
Thanks for your reply Colin.
So, let me get this clear......space stretches at a rate faster than light, light stretches as the red shift effect in terms of wavelength only (as the rate of light stretching is still capped at the speed of liight), although the wavelength of the stretching is not capped.
And so why again is it called "spacetime" if spacetime can exceed light speed, and "time" operates differently with light despite the wavelength of light conforming with the expansion/stretching of space (as per the red shift effect)? I understand the idea of spacetime with relativity, space and time being a part of the same continuum, yet only the wavelength of light rolls out with spacetime as it expands faster than light, not "time". Light it seems represents a departure from spacetime, yet is fundamental to relativity theory.
(the "universal manifold" here I'm considering would be spacetime and "light"....light obeys spacetime as per the metric of space, yet not time though).
Light it thus seems is being stretched by the accelerating expansion of spacetime, yet as a speed is unaffected by the accelerating expansion of spacetime. I guess therefore the answer to my topic question is no. One thing seems to be clear though, space out runs light according to special and general relativity. "Faster than light" travel then seems to be owned by the idea of general relativity and associated red shift requirements for space. As a "universal manifold", a concept, a proposal, that involves light "upon" that faster-than-light spatial manifold, it doesn't seem possible, as light is cut back to "c" according to general relativity. That roughly addresses the question I asked.
-
So, let me get this clear......space stretches at a rate faster than light,
Doesn’t have to. Light travels through space at c so any stretching of space, even a minuscule amount, would result in an observed value >c.
And so why again is it called "spacetime" if spacetime can exceed light speed
Why would you change the name?
Stretch a rubber band and it is still a rubber band, tune a guitar string and its still a guitar string.
(the "universal manifold" here I'm considering would be spacetime and "light"....light obeys spacetime as per the metric of space, yet not time though).
Could you explain how spacetime + light creates a manifold, and what do you mean by a ‘universal manifold’.
Also can you explain this “light obeys spacetime as per the metric of space”?
You keep making statements that don’t appear to make sense, please clarify. Or start a new theory.
Light .....as a speed is unaffected by the accelerating expansion of spacetime. I guess therefore the answer to my topic question is no.
Local speed is unaffected.
-
The first question I'll address is light addressing the "metric" of space......in that I mean the "distance" of space, as space can only be......the governing feature of the red shift effect and how that effects light, namely wavelength extension with space. The "metric" of space is its distance, and light accommodates there as per the red shift effect, as theory suggests. Yet it doesn't accommodate for "time", as its locality requires "c", according to theory.
The question about a manifold:
In mathematics, a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. More precisely, each point of an n-dimensional manifold has a neighbourhood that is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space of dimension n. In this more precise terminology, a manifold is referred to as an n-manifold.
Essentially I was asking if light is able to ride spacetime and not readjust to perform a local "c".
The post is a question seeking an answer ideally aimed to confirm why current theory stands as it does. The post is not a "new theory", as I haven't presented any ideas for a new theory, merely a question about why "c" is local on space that expands faster than "c".
-
The first question I'll address is light addressing the "metric" of space......in that I mean the "distance" of space, as space can only be......the governing feature of the red shift effect and how that effects light, namely wavelength extension with space. The "metric" of space is its distance, and light accommodates there as per the red shift effect, as theory suggests. Yet it doesn't accommodate for "time", as its locality requires "c", according to theory.
It doesn’t have to ‘accomodate for time’ locally. Mark a series of dots on the surface of a balloon, place your finger on one of the dots and inflate the balloon, your finger will stay over the dot unmoving, but the distance between the dots increases.
As @Kryptid said, the important part is that information is not transferred faster than light.
The question about a manifold:
In mathematics, a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. More precisely, each point of an n-dimensional manifold has a neighbourhood that is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space of dimension n. In this more precise terminology, a manifold is referred to as an n-manifold.
Essentially I was asking if light is able to ride spacetime and not readjust to perform a local "c".
I know what a manifold is.
Your response doesn’t answer my question “Could you explain how spacetime + light creates a manifold, and what do you mean by a ‘universal manifold’.”
-
Ok, so given the red-shift is real, a far far away observer will view us as a spatial manifold moving, dispersing, apart at a rate greater than "c". Is there evidence for that in our spatial district, even though "locally" "c" is not violated?
I'm not suggesting a universal manifold of light and spacetime as one, that was a question. It's a little difficult to explain what a question is though, right? C'mon, I don't think I need to explain the concept of a "question" with the aim to explore how general and special relativity works, right?
-
Can [something that doesn't exist] work as [it doesn't really matter much]?
No, because it doesn't exist.
(OK, it could work as a metaphor or something like that but...)
-
Thanks Einstein, but why......that was the whole point of the post......the aim for a nice description of special and general relativity with the red shift effect and c non-violations in mind. You know, I'm thinking one or two great physicists "back in the day" asked the same question I have. I'm thinking it was a question Einstein asked, a "differential diagnosis" of how to resolve local and distant effects with the red shift in mind.
Besides, BordedChemist, faster than light travel does work if you are "spacetime" as per contemporary theory. Space is travelling such, expanding such, on the outer limits as compared to any reference in reality far far away from it.
One thing that hasn't been uttered yet is "quantum entanglement", or as Einstein said, "spooky action at a distance". Ok, having done all the preliminary SR and GR, and given we know what a "manifold" is, how can two manifolds in space communicate faster than light in a universal, as it would seem, "context"?
-
a far far away observer will view us as a spatial manifold moving, dispersing, apart at a rate greater than "c".
If an object is always traveling away from us at greater than c, then we would never see it.
If it expanded at less than c in the past, and is now expanding greater than c (due to the accelerating expansion of the universe), then we would still be able to see "old" light from the object, even if light emitted "now" will never reach us.
a far far away observer will view us as a spatial manifold moving, dispersing, apart at a rate greater than "c". Is there evidence for that in our spatial district?
The CMBR is thought to have been emitted around 300,000 years after the Big Bang.
Initially at a temperature around 3,000K, it has now been red-shifted to around 2.7K, or a red-shift of about 1000:1.
The CMBR is visible in our space.
-
Sure, if any object is moving away from us greater than "c", number one, locally, that's impossible (for any object). Yet number two, space distantly is moving greater than "c" as per the red shift of light, that proposal of spatial expansion, and we do see it, do we not, that cluster of activity? That's why "c" isn't violated locally there, right? How can the red-shift be measured without a source? The CMBR? No. The CMBR is the proposed energy of the theorised big bang, that has been married to the red shift effect, to thus propose the big bang.
If I can re-iterate:
One thing that hasn't been uttered yet is "quantum entanglement", or as Einstein said, "spooky action at a distance". Ok, having done all the preliminary SR and GR, and given we know what a "manifold" is, how can two manifolds in space communicate faster than light in a universal, as it would seem, "context"?
Evan, your suggestion that something can pick up speed owing to the expansion of space greater than c and no longer been seen does appear to violate local "c" effects from here to the observed issue.
The zodiac appears relatively stable, through millennia. If there was faster than light space effecting the stars, the stars would be gradually getting dimmer and moving outwards away from us, sure, yet we spend lots of resources on finding the dimmest stars, only to find dimmer ones....and then dimmer ones still. When stars drop out then, because they're effected by the expansion of space and that effect on their relative velocity to us, such we can't see them anymore, yet they do still exist, do we suggest they just "black out"? They're still there though, right?
-
Say we were inside a space craft that was pure energy and are therefore able to move at the speed of light. We look outside out energy craft's window, and based on the speed of light reference and special relativity, the universe appears to be a contained in a point-instant; speed of light POV.
After traveling, we reach our destination and put on the brakes. We decelerate from the speed of light, to the finite speed of the earth for a rendezvous. During the deceleration we look out the window and notice that the point-instant universe, we had been seeing, now appears to expand in space-time. We are decelerating from the speed of light, yet the universe appears to be expanding faster than the speed of light. Which is cause and which is affect?
The universe still contains traces from its past, which we can see today. The universe is huge and light has a finite speed. If you assume that our universe began as a singularity, and all the mass/energy of the universe was originally in that singularity, then the universe reference began very close to a speed of light reference.
For the universe to expand, the average observational reference of the infant universe would also have to expand in terms of the average space-time reference of the universe. Again, if the universe still has traces from his very early beginnings, what would happen if this leading change of reference was preserved? The analysis of my first post comes into play, such that what appears to be faster than light expansion, is an affect from a primary cause. The analogy is we see smoke; faster than speed of light, but this smoke came from an explosion, that has long past, which generated the smoke.
In terms of faster than the speed of light being a universal manifold, in the above analysis, this is an affect, and not the primary cause. It could be used, but it is one or two steps away from a simpler manifold.
Note: the term equivalent reference that will be used is an accounting trick for conceptual simplification. It translates any GR based reference, into the speed required in SR, to see the same space-time reference. The black hole generates a reference close to C via GR. This is equivalent to the space-time reference of any sized object with a velocity close to C-.
Let me go back to the primordial atom and an original speed of light reference; energy point. For inertial matter to form the universe cannot maintain a reference moving at the speed of light. Its reference equivalent needs to be slightly slower, to say C-. To decrease from C to C-; equivalent references, we need to put on the brakes, with the generation of brake heat.
This brake heat may be what we call dark energy. It is not your normal heat, since it is connected to a transitional change of space-time reference from C to C-. and not to inertial materials per se. It is transitional heat output from the condensation of energy into matter and anti-matter. In other words, this brake heat would have the properties of dark energy in the sense what this type of heat can be absorbed by space-time. It is not absorb by matter directly, however, it does impact matter, indirectly.
The observed faster than speed of light affect, could be explained by a simple extrapolation of special relativity. If we took matter and attempted to speed it up to the speed of light, this will take infinite energy. It follows then, if matter was to directly condense from a speed of light reference, the result will generate infinite matter/energy. Since we live in a finite universe, we need a way to conserve and express this infinite energy, while ending up with a finite result. The faster than speed of light observation may be a space-time energy sink, that allows near infinite energy to end up as finite matter.
-
Einstein based SR and GR on a finite universe.
Somewhere alone the line with calculations that was disproven.
You're suggesting the BB happened initially at light speed, and then "spacetime" didn't speed up and leave light behind?
SR and GR in its perfect form was not BB adjusted. The BB came through marrying the CMBR with the red shift effect.
Talking about matter being observed to condense into nothing, whatever the process, when it still exists according to BB theory and red shift faster than light expansion, is nonsene. Why not say we live in a world of apparition in the stars?
I get your point though.....yet if I was screen testing an idea that hid a greater truth, that's close.... maybe an Oscar....I'd look at singularities as an a-priori that leads to results, not results that point to a possible a-priori.
-
Einstein based SR and GR on a finite universe.
Somewhere alone the line with calculations that was disproven.
You're suggesting the BB happened initially at light speed, and then "spacetime" didn't speed up and leave light behind?
SR and GR in its perfect form was not BB adjusted. The BB came through marrying the CMBR with the red shift effect.
Talking about matter being observed to condense into nothing when it still exists is nonsene. Why not say we live in a world of apparition in the stars?
What I said is the observed faster than the speed of light expansion is a result of something more fundamental.
For example, say we could travel in a rocket at the speed of light; hypothetically. This is not allowed by SR, but this is hypothetical.If we look out the window we will see the entire universe appeared to be contained on a point-instant.
We then put on the brakes and decelerate to earth speed in 1 second. If you looked out the window, during this deceleration, the universe would appear to expand faster than the speed of light. The universe is not doing anything, per se, but this is what we will see, because the rocket ship is decelerating. You could place a camera in the window and record this visual, but it is not real in the sense of happening to the universe.
What I said is if this initial deceleration from C to inertial was preserved in the universe, secondary affects will appear. You will see relative reference affects from time=0+ than have been preserved in space-time.
Relative to the rocket decelerating, we can see the universe expand only from its windows for a 1 second time interval. Beyond that we will not see anything. From the preserved traces of the original expansion in reference; analogous to a slow down from C, we can look out all the windows of the universe and see the same thing. The trace evidence is everywhere, preserved by time and energy.
-
How can the red-shift be measured without a source?
It can’t. Distant galaxies and cmbr are sources
Evan, your suggestion that something can pick up speed owing to the expansion of space greater than c and no longer been seen does appear to violate local "c" effects from here to the observed issue.
No, go back to the balloon, each dot has its own ‘local.
There are no “local "c" effects from here to the observed issue”
If I can re-iterate:
One thing that hasn't been uttered yet is "quantum entanglement", or as Einstein said, "spooky action at a distance". Ok, having done all the preliminary SR and GR, and given we know what a "manifold" is, how can two manifolds in space communicate faster than light in a universal, as it would seem, "context"?
No point raising entanglement (which is irrelevant to this discussion) when we still haven’t resolved what you mean by spacetime and light creating a manifold, the definition you quote doesn’t clarify that. It’s important to get an understanding of why these terms are raised because at the moment your terminology tends to obscure rather than clarify.
The zodiac appears relatively stable, through millennia.
If there was faster than light space effecting the stars, the stars would be gradually getting dimmer and moving outwards away from us, sure, yet we spend lots of resources on finding the dimmest stars, only to find dimmer ones....and then dimmer ones still. When stars drop out then, because they're effected by the expansion of space and that effect on their relative velocity to us, such we can't see them anymore, yet they do still exist, do we suggest they just "black out"? They're still there though, right?
Zodiac was based on what could be seen with naked eye, so all the stars are within our galaxy ie local. It doesn’t appear stable over millennia based on our measurements which ancient people didn’t have access to.
Further out we are looking at galaxies, if moving away they get dimmer because the redshift has less energy and the longer wavelengths begin to move out of our visual field. We can still detect them as they go beyond visual range by means of IR, microwave and radio frequency detection. I think all this has been mentioned before somewhere.
-
Ok. Good answers.
So we're saying the expansion happens everywhere and stars in the distance wont fade away because if they do we do? And the expansion is exactly happening to us right now compared to a distant reference? Wow, I'm not noticing any spatial expansion right now......am I dumb?
So we are, right now, expanding at a high rate, uniformly, outwards, to a reference elsewhere in the universe....far far away? And it's over light speed?....as a potential life form far far away would view us?
Sometimes I think science is a good way for a heads up, who's cheating us and why.
Colin, the knee bone has no idea about the shoulder bone, let alone the head bone. You're asking for Gray's Anatomy with some of your questions (and "answers")...try to see the "overall" idea...."the question", and not as you suppose "the statement" that is meant to in your view presuppose, it appears, everything else. I'm doing what I can to encourage debate, and yet you clarify statements (it seems to the contrary, despite my attempts to resolve your need to clarify specifics....and to what end exactly?), sure, but what about quantum-entanglement? Where's the manifold there? You avoid that, why? Not a forte? Avoiding an issue is obvious. I can't say you're the only one though, to your credit....
What's your idea, ideas, about QE?
To be frank, I'm not impressed by the answers so far. A lot of avoidance on topics key to the underlying subject of QE....."faster than light travel in a universal manifold".....all I get is "what's that"? Zero intuition. Are kids these days taught QE at school?
Is QE real: is it confined/"specific" to certain areas of space we can localise, or could it get more "general"?
-
With Puppypower’s answers marked as best answer, this topic has moved well into new theories territory as we can now see clearly what sort of pseudoscience answer you are looking for.
I’m not at all impressed with your inability to define what you mean by statements in your posts. Starting to look too much of pseudoscience than a real quest for understanding.
In this section you can explore what you like and invent whatever terminology you wish.
-
With Puppypower’s answers marked as best answer, this topic has moved well into new theories territory as we can now see clearly what sort of pseudoscience answer you are looking for.
I’m not at all impressed with your inability to define what you mean by statements in your posts. Starting to look too much of pseudoscience than a real quest for understanding.
In this section you can explore what you like and invent whatever terminology you wish.
I'll promise not to post anything about quantum entanglement here ....Thanks.
-
You can post whatever you like here as long as it is legal and friendly.
However, there is no benefit in bringing entanglement into a discussion that clearly isn’t giving you the answers you are expecting, it will just create more confusion.
-
Sorry if QE was illegal and unfriendly :'(
Really?
Faster than light....who could have thought quantum entanglement would poke it's illegal head?
Sorry, "unfriendly" and "illegal" head, right?
Yep...hope you people know what facing science is all about...one day.....
I'm gone, this is nuts......bye, and good luck with you're "stuff".......I sincerely say that........
For the time I've been in the forum, I have to say it has been the best way to get involved with science.....you know, despite misconceptions with questions. I think I asked too many questions......so, my advice to anyone else....."not too many questions"!!.....read this post for instance.....still, great forum....lots of potential....
-
Sorry if QE was illegal and unfriendly :'(
Really?
Faster than light....who could have thought quantum entanglement would poke it's illegal head?
Sorry, "unfriendly" and "illegal" head, right?
Yep...hope you people know what facing science is all about...one day.....
I'm gone, this is nuts......bye, and good luck with you're "stuff".......I sincerely say that........
For the time I've been in the forum, I have to say it has been the best way to get involved with science.....you know, despite misconceptions with questions. I think I asked too many questions......so, my advice to anyone else....."not too many questions"!!.....read this post for instance.....still, great forum....lots of potential....
I think you misunderstood what Colin2B was saying. Nowhere did he say (or even imply) that quantum entanglement is "illegal" or "unfriendly". However, problems with communication do appear to be a common thing on this board. Perhaps you could try to rephrase you statements so that it's easier for us to understand what exactly it is that you are asking.
By the way, quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information faster than light.
-
The zodiac appears relatively stable, through millennia.
Edmund Halley (famed for his eponymous comet) discovered that stars were moving through space when studying a star map from the ancient astronomer Hipparchus. Some prominent stars were drawn in the "wrong" positions - by the width of the Moon! No self-respecting astronomer would make that mistake! (These stars were bright because they are relatively close to us, and so display a greater "Proper Motion".)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion#History
In the 1990s, the Hipparcos satellite measured the motion of 100,000 nearby stars; now, with later missions, that catalogue is being expanded to measure the proper motion of a billion nearby stars.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparcos
stars in the distance wont fade away because if they do we do?
It is true that with an accelerating expansion of the universe, distant galaxies would gradually redshift into oblivion (or fade away, as you put it).
But we would still be just as visible (to us, not them).
...That is, unless the expansion accelerates so much that we end up with a "Big Rip", and even nearby stars and planets get torn away!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
Wow, I'm not noticing any spatial expansion right now......am I dumb?
No, not dumb. Just unoriginal - the Inquisition used the same argument when condemning Galileo for claiming that the Earth moves around the Sun.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
-
Sorry if QE was illegal and unfriendly :'(
Really?
Faster than light....who could have thought quantum entanglement would poke it's illegal head?
Sorry, "unfriendly" and "illegal" head, right?
Yep...hope you people know what facing science is all about...one day.....
I'm gone, this is nuts......bye, and good luck with you're "stuff".......I sincerely say that........
For the time I've been in the forum, I have to say it has been the best way to get involved with science.....you know, despite misconceptions with questions. I think I asked too many questions......so, my advice to anyone else....."not too many questions"!!.....read this post for instance.....still, great forum....lots of potential....
By the way, quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information faster than light.
As a parting gesture, I have to mention a number of people in Silicon valley would profoundly disagree. Yet again this post was sent to the light hearted new theories section because no one takes QE seriously. Haha, ok.I still think this is a good post if anyone wants to understand SR and GR and how scientists (? mmmm) can spit the dummy when things get a bit complex.
-
As a parting gesture, I have to mention a number of people in Silicon valley would profoundly disagree.
Then either they are wrong or you are mistaken about what they claim to believe. You can't transmit information with quantum entanglement because you can't force a particle to collapse into any particular state. Whether a particle in a superposition collapses into a spin-up or spin-down state is random. If you detect that the particle is in a spin-up state, you know that the other must be in a spin-down state, but that's it. How do you propose to send signals when the "message" you send is inevitably a random set of spin-ups and spin-downs?
-
As a parting gesture, I have to mention a number of people in Silicon valley would profoundly disagree.
Then either they are wrong or you are mistaken about what they claim to believe. You can't transmit information with quantum entanglement because you can't force a particle to collapse into any particular state. Whether a particle in a superposition collapses into a spin-up or spin-down state is random. If you detect that the particle is in a spin-up state, you know that the other must be in a spin-down state, but that's it. How do you propose to send signals when the "message" you send is inevitably a random set of spin-ups and spin-downs?
Look, I wish I could talk about a subject like this, but baiting is one thing, being genuine with question and answer is another. There's been a lot of good answers in this post, and I''d say most of it has been disregarded in favour of knit picking. Its a bad look guys.
-
Look, I wish I could talk about a subject like this, but baiting is one thing, being genuine with question and answer is another. There's been a lot of good answers in this post, and I''d say most of it has been disregarded in favour of knit picking. Its a bad look guys.
I don't know why you think I'm "baiting" you. I have no ill-intentions.
-
"Baiting" doesn't have to be nefarious, it could be to get a good answer, but the process oof being interrogated by trolls who ignore valid points begins to suck. Now, I'm not calling anyone a troll, I just mentioned knit-picking. Lots of good ideas in this post have been presented and deliberately diistorted. If that's not trolling, well, whatever.
I suggest you google silicon valley, quantum computing, and quantum entanglement, and those research endeavours, as an introduction to the idea. Besides, quantum computing appears to be a "new theory" in this forum, so I understand your uncertainty.
-
"Baiting" doesn't have to be nefarious, it could be to get a good answer, but the process oof being interrogated by trolls who ignore valid points begins to suck. Now, I'm not calling anyone a troll, I just mentioned knit-picking. Lots of good ideas in this post have been presented and deliberately diistorted. If that's not trolling, well, whatever.
I suggest you google silicon valley, quantum computing, and quantum entanglement, and those research endeavours, as an introduction to the idea. Besides, quantum computing appears to be a "new theory" in this forum, so I understand your uncertainty.
Quantum computing is a legitimate area of study, yes. It doesn't have anything to do with faster-than-light communication, however. That's not the reason it is being researched.
-
I think this is another example of "stone-walling". Quantum entanglment appears to be a diirty word in this forum. Sad.
"Entanglement has many applications in quantum information theory".....gee, where did I get that quote from?
oh, wow, here's another one......"most researchers believe that entanglement is necessary to realise quantum computing"......
I'm like, "wo.....we're from a different planet", right?
-
I think this is another example of "stone-walling". Quantum entanglment appears to be a diirty word in this forum. Sad.
How you get that out of my post is beyond me.
"Entanglement has many applications in quantum information theory".....gee, where did I get that quote from?
oh, wow, here's another one......"most researchers believe that entanglement is necessary to realise quantum computing"......
I'm like, "wo.....we're from a different planet", right?
None of that has anything to do with transmitting information faster than light.
-
Dude, read up on QE, the basics, and how that translates to the idea of varying sets of data transmission.
It's been good man. All the best best.
-
Dude, read up on QE, the basics, and how that translates to the idea of varying sets of data transmission.
This may be of use to you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/2/#6d257b913ad0p (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/2/#6d257b913ad0p)
There is also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem)
-
Dude, read up on QE, the basics, and how that translates to the idea of varying sets of data transmission.
This may be of use to you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/2/#6d257b913ad0p (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/2/#6d257b913ad0p)
There is also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem)
I'm sorry, but that link so so lame. The "blogger" was referring to a single quantum state, not a grouping. Of course data can't be sent along a standard QE link. Daaaa.. As I said, read up on the idea, it might even get to the physics section!! ;)
-
I'm sorry, but that link so so lame.
So why not address the other link? Moreover, how can a group of several quantum states send information faster than light if a single one cannot?
I cannot find a single verified instance of faster-than-light information transfer using quantum entanglement. Even articles talking about quantum teleportation of particle states emphasize that no faster-than-light information transfer is taking place. Look at this, for example: https://www.inverse.com/article/34027-quantum-teleportation-entanglement-computing-internet-china (https://www.inverse.com/article/34027-quantum-teleportation-entanglement-computing-internet-china)
So if quantum computing or quantum teleportation cannot transmit information faster-than-light, then what phenomenon are you talking about that actually can do it?
-
I think this is another example of "stone-walling". Quantum entanglment appears to be a diirty word in this forum. Sad.
How you get that out of my post is beyond me.
He doesn’t. This is trolling showing true colours.
Box used to do it in the main section. Drop in what appears to be an innocent question but it isn’t long before the preconceived ideas and antiscience views start turning up. Deliberate misinterpretation of what you said. Strange terminology that is never explained. Misquoting papers just like our conspiracy friend. They don’t understand any real science and can’t be bothered to learn.
It doesn’t matter what you say, the idea is to turn it around and make you appear you are wrong.
Let him go, they are 10 a penny and not worth a second thought.
-
It doesn’t matter what you say, the idea is to turn it around and make you appear you are wrong.
Does that mean that "opportunity" is really "opportunistic"?
-
It doesn’t matter what you say, the idea is to turn it around and make you appear you are wrong.
Does that mean that "opportunity" is really "opportunistic"?
Ho, ho, ho.
(Desperately searching for response, give me time)
-
I'm cautious about asking questions to those who already have answers......if you already have an answer, where's your doctorate, your website?
You know, now this subject is posted to a new theory, "lighten up", right? I mean no one accepts QE is real....granted. How "can" QE be real in this forum, if its a "new theory"?
<seeing Colin had a sense of xmas..ho ho ho... I thought I would you know believe in xmas again...as a lowly elf....>
But, the question still remains, "if everything is expanding uniformly yet accelerating beyond light speed, according to modern theory, what reference is given the bliss of stability we have and why? Are we expanding right now? Maybe it's just too slow for us to notice?"
I know, you're going to ask me to cite dialogue, references in this forum.......if you don't know the answer though, that's ok....why ask me if I'm not a fountain of wisdom? The question is asked though....(see sentence/paragraph above).
Why aren't we rapidly expanding, as people,, as a planet, as pixels on a golf ball exploding would?...the expectations are universally this is a universal phenomena faster than light......that's a tall order.
Maybe because compared to everything else its not even relevant?
-
I'm sorry, but that link so so lame.
So why not address the other link? Moreover, how can a group of several quantum states send information faster than light if a single one cannot?
I cannot find a single verified instance of faster-than-light information transfer using quantum entanglement. Even articles talking about quantum teleportation of particle states emphasize that no faster-than-light information transfer is taking place. Look at this, for example: https://www.inverse.com/article/34027-quantum-teleportation-entanglement-computing-internet-china (https://www.inverse.com/article/34027-quantum-teleportation-entanglement-computing-internet-china)
So if quantum computing or quantum teleportation cannot transmit information faster-than-light, then what phenomenon are you talking about that actually can do it?
Quantum entanglement "can't" relate data as a singular concept (and I know Colin will ask what "singular" is). that's obvious.
Yet, getting over than hurdle, if QE is recognised as "groups", doing QE groups "can" do information transfer.
ask me how.
-
I mean no one accepts QE is real....granted. How "can" QE be real in this forum, if its a "new theory"?
QE is real. It is an essential part of how atomic level interactions take place. It has also been given a weird mysticism by those who do not understand it - and by a few who should know better.
As has been explained, this is primarily an educational site and the main part of the forum is reserved for questions on current science. Please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
This post was moved because a post by puppypower was marked as best answer, this is seriously misleading for anyone reading through the thread.
-
Why aren't we rapidly expanding, as people,, as a planet, as pixels on a golf ball exploding would?...the expectations are universally this is a universal phenomena faster than light......that's a tall order.
Because that's not how the metric expansion of space works. The relative speed of expansion is measured as a function of distance between two objects. The further apart two objects are, the faster they seem to move relative to each other. This is because there is more space between distant objects than between nearby objects. If space was expanding by 1% per second per mile, then two objects 1 mile apart would be 1.01 miles from each other after 1 second, 1.0201 miles apart after 2 seconds and so on. But if the two objects were 1,000 miles apart, then they would be 1,010 miles apart after 1 second and 1,020.1 miles apart after 2 seconds. It's much faster. Because humans and even the Earth are so small compared to the Universe, the metric expansion of space on our scale is too small to be noticed.
ask me how.
Okay, how? Describe how your proposed quantum information transfer method could be used to send information faster than light.
-
I mean no one accepts QE is real....granted. How "can" QE be real in this forum, if its a "new theory"?
QE is real. It is an essential part of how atomic level interactions take place. It has also been given a weird mysticism by those who do not understand it - and by a few who should know better.
As has been explained, this is primarily an educational site and the main part of the forum is reserved for questions on current science. Please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
This post was moved because a post by puppypower was marked as best answer, this is seriously misleading for anyone reading through the thread.
In truth, I hit the wrong button there. Why would I say something was the best answer only a few posts in? How does one undo that btw?
-
Why aren't we rapidly expanding, as people,, as a planet, as pixels on a golf ball exploding would?...the expectations are universally this is a universal phenomena faster than light......that's a tall order.
Because that's not how the metric expansion of space works. The relative speed of expansion is measured as a function of distance between two objects. The further apart two objects are, the faster they seem to move relative to each other. This is because there is more space between distant objects than between nearby objects. If space was expanding by 1% per second per mile, then two objects 1 mile apart would be 1.01 miles from each other after 1 second, 1.0201 miles apart after 2 seconds and so on. But if the two objects were 1,000 miles apart, then they would be 1,010 miles apart after 1 second and 1,020.1 miles apart after 2 seconds. It's much faster. Because humans and even the Earth are so small compared to the Universe, the metric expansion of space on our scale is too small to be noticed.
ask me how.
Okay, how? Describe how your proposed quantum information transfer method could be used to send information faster than light.
So, given direct quantum entanglement is not a way to transfer information, there are some who think that grouping QE events with chaos theory "might".
I can't provide references, don't want to be hated, but the logic is there.
-
So, given direct quantum entanglement is not a way to transfer information, there are some who think that grouping QE events with chaos theory "might".
I can't provide references, don't want to be hated, but the logic is there.
If you can't give us references or even explain the "logic", then how do you expect us to accept that?
-
So, given direct quantum entanglement is not a way to transfer information, there are some who think that grouping QE events with chaos theory "might".
I can't provide references, don't want to be hated, but the logic is there.
If you can't give us references or even explain the "logic", then how do you expect us to accept that?
Kryptid, I'm sorry, it was just a veiled expression of disappointment with the feedback of the links I've already provided (knit-picked way too greatly I think).
Yet as a primer on the subject, the following should suffice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chaos
It introduces the ideas of chaos and quantum mechanics. It doesn't explain how chaos theory and quantum entanglement can successfully merge and how, of course, otherwise we would have mastered quantum computing using quantum entanglement and chaos theory. I'm sure there are searches out there willing to liberate those research ventures though.
I'm happy to let this subject rest though. I had no point to make, just seeking to know who is interested in this type of subject. "If" for instance quantum computing using the ideas of quantum entanglement and chaos theory is possible, it opens up to larger scale questions that posit what I put as a universal manifold (probably shouldn't have done that, yet in my previous posts in this topic I have tried to explain why). I have to re-iterate though, this is not a new theory, the subject topic is a question, no new theory has been presented, its a question based on the idea of quantum-entanglement and a "universal manifold"...I aimed to generate talk on the basics first, relativity, SR and GR, then move to QE and quantum computing with chaos theory. We've sort of done that, so thank you all for the feedback.