[yor_on]

Well, it's as Pete says, it can't be a centripetal force. But that doesn't mean that you can't construct a universe from your idea. As a writer it will be yours and I see nothing stopping you from constructing it. Unless you crave it to be a 'hard core' SF in which case you need to adapt to what science know and defines.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

Well, it's as Pete says, it can't be a centripetal force. But that doesn't mean that you can't construct a universe from your idea. As a writer it will be yours and I see nothing stopping you from constructing it. Unless you crave it to be a 'hard core' SF in which case you need to adapt to what science know and defines.

after some further reading - yup- i was wrong there. if the force is just the string holding the ball from flying off than yup i was wrong. i may look into taking advantage of quantum entanglement, and i need to read general relativity again- its been too many years since i have brushed up on it thoroughly.

any other ideas?

[faytmorgan (OP)]

Check this out-
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/140550-first-teleportation-of-macroscopic-objects-leads-the-way-to-quantum-internet [nofollow]

if we can transport this small information- perhaps when tech becomes more pronounced we can attempt transporting a plant seed or been then the plant then an insect then an animal (a rat) then maybe even a human being. or am i just way off base here?

can anyone give me a better explanation on how this work exactly? as in how do they or what do they use to entangle the bits?

[yor_on]

Assume you want to port state A to some other place. You get two entangled objects, B1 and B2. One you keep, the other you deliver somehow to the place where you want to replicate state A. You can't measure on state A directly as that will interfere with its state, changing it. So what you do is to measure on the relation state A has to state B1, for example the way state B1:s spin has to state A, around some axis. Knowing the relation you haven't measured state A directly. but you have a relation that will be just as true for your friend 'over there' that you sent the entangled B2 too. The only thing he will need is a new 'photon' State C that he then put in the exact same relation to B2 that your B1 have to state A.

But it is indeed measuring involved, although on the relation between those particles state. And what you should end up with is two exactly correlated photons both in State A. But it is a tricky one. Check up Charles Bennet (1993) IBM if you're interested of it.

It's not a 'startrek procedure' but a indirect way to create a relation between what you measure on and what you want to copy, giving you as 'exact' a copy on the other side we possibly can imagine. And it opens for discussion as it builds on a assumption that I can measure on something being in a relation to something else without changing the relation, or else assuming that even if I do change the relation, I still won't have changed  the original 'particle' which state I want to copy to the other side. Also, the sending of this information, or code, will still have to be done under light speed (in a vacuum)

[yor_on]

And the entanglement in this case can be done with a beamsplitter, separating one photon into two, down converting the original photons energy 1 to two photons of .5, in where the subsequent photons now will have opposite polarizations (spin) and so be 'entangled'. The weird thing about entanglements are that they are supposed to instantly set their states as fast as you measure on one. Either you can assume some hidden parameter creating the 'spins', at their creation? Or you can assume a entanglement to ignore distance and light speed.

Also, there is no way for you to know what the spin will be on the particle you measure on, before the measurement. It has a 50% chance to be 'up' or 'down'. But no matter what polarization/spin it is found to be, the other particle will 'know' and set the opposite.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

This sounds a LOT like how you project a hologram. Am I off base here?

[yor_on]

You better explain how you think there, then we'll see what we agree on

[faytmorgan (OP)]

Teleporting a photon (a photon is the smallest measurable unit of light) using quantum entanglement (QE). When two photons are entangled on a quantum level the changes in “particle A” create changes in “particle B”. Regardless of the physical distance between them. This has been proven at the particle level.

In 2009 scientists at the University of California manged to demonstrate QE by linking the electrical currents of two super-conductors which were large enough to be seen by the naked eye. Before this time QE had only been observed at much smaller levels.

The entangled particles somehow contain or transmit information with no contact. Each object then contains information about the entire entangled system. The only other structures that exhibit this phenomenon are called holograms. Holograms are two dimensional surfaces that show precisely detailed three dimensional images of real objects.

Which makes sense to me going back to what I have already been thinking on how the universe is constructed - the holographic principle.

Leonard Susskind on the Holographic principle

UC Berkeley's Raphael Bousso on the Holographic principle

And Wikipedia article on the Holographic principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle [nofollow]

There are things in theology that I have linked to this in particular. I came across this idea when I was sitting on my front porch trying to figure out what tells the cement to stay/be cement and separate from the iron railing going down the bath that is grounded into it. So i closed my eyes and visualized a myriad of different possibilities. The only logical explanation I have found thus far is that on the smallest level (quarks/bits quantum/photon/etc) that the stuff at that level has a certain amount of programing of sorts. This programing can understand the programing -like a computer- from other stuff that may be slightly different. The slight differences in the programing pave the way for the stuff to put in one file and separate from other files. Although the stuff is all in one big folder in the end regardless of having separate files. That one big file being the computer itself. The computer at this level would require to understand all of the files within it and could accesses all of the files within it at will.

This made me think of how holograms are formed. I then asked a friend of mine about it who had mentioned about seven years ago about the holographic principle. He then told me what I was describing is very similar to the holographic principle. So I decided to do some research on it.

Throughout all of my research I had a nagging thing on the back of my mind. That thing was my memory of all the studies I have done in theology/mythology/legends/and the like. There are a few things that all of these topics (theology etc) have in common if you go to their furthermost roots in their development. There is a certain amount of "oneness" being connected to the "all", the "big spirit", a reference to being in (as in not "akin to", damn it, its WITHIN the image) the image of god, that this (god) greater consciousness was infinite. Then I remembered something I read about hermes trismegistus from the "Kybalion".

Wiki article on the Kybalion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kybalion [nofollow]

Aside from "the principle of gender" this train of thought actually relates to all of the things I have been thinking. We all know everything but we know nothing we are just figments of our own belief. In hypothesis, if we all stopped believing each other existed we would cease to exist. Our mind is a thing we can train. What are we training? The file system within our self- is the best way I know to describe it. This file system is similar to how the universe works (there have been multiple studies that have lead to the human brain works similar to a holographic storage device), and seeing that the everything (including us and rocks and trees etc) are part of this everything, "the all" we could, in hypothesis- train our mind to affect the stuff around us.

This is where my mind is going at this point. sorry for the terrible writing (run on sentences etc)- eek.

[lightarrow]

The entangled particles somehow contain or transmit information with no contact.

Do you mean I am entangled with my brother every time he calls me by phone?  []

[faytmorgan (OP)]

as long as that it is not lude- then yes. btw the dictionary here is not picking up the word lude- that indeed, IS a word...

[Pmb]

after some further reading - yup- i was wrong there. if the force is just the string holding the ball from flying off than yup i was wrong. i may look into taking advantage of quantum entanglement, and i need to read general relativity again- its been too many years since i have brushed up on it thoroughly.

any other ideas?

A centripetal force is merely the force required to move an object in a circle or a circular part of a trajectory. The force could be the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force. A charged particle moving perpendicular to the field lines in a uiform magnetic field causes the centripetal force in that case. For a satelite moving around the earth its the gravitational force. The force required to hold an object moving along a solid object (e.g. roller coaster) is electric in nature, as is the force exerted by a string.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

after some further reading - yup- i was wrong there. if the force is just the string holding the ball from flying off than yup i was wrong. i may look into taking advantage of quantum entanglement, and i need to read general relativity again- its been too many years since i have brushed up on it thoroughly.

any other ideas?

A centripetal force is merely the force required to move an object in a circle or a circular part of a trajectory. The force could be the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force. A charged particle moving perpendicular to the field lines in a uiform magnetic field causes the centripetal force in that case. For a satelite moving around the earth its the gravitational force. The force required to hold an object moving along a solid object (e.g. roller coaster) is electric in nature, as is the force exerted by a string.

yep- i was wrong there. thoughts about the similarity to a hologram?

[yor_on]

I'm not sure, A holographic image is a wave phenomena as I get it, and sure, you might think of photons as waves (wave packets) if you like. But the holographic theory? Would that be a wave definition then? As I get it the definiton expect two dimensions to exist, from where we get our third, and a arrow?

[yor_on]

What I'm saying is that a wave is dimension less. Then again, I'm not that good on defining a holographic universe, maybe we have someone that can do it in simple terms?

[faytmorgan (OP)]

Did you watch the you tube videos i posted?

[Pmb]

Did you watch the you tube videos i posted?

Not yet. I've been having problems with my PC. Internet Explorer and FirFox have been running as slow as molasses for some reason. I can't figure out why. I scanned my system with Ad-Aware and found no problems. I tried to download Spybot but got errors so I can't use that program to see if there are problems with my system. Any ideas anybody?

[faytmorgan (OP)]

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
avg
update spybot

go into safe mode and do this. sometimes you will miss stuff if you are not in safe mode. you wont be able to go to the internet in safe mode- so you know. beyond that if you have never done registry sweeping- you are better off handing it off to someone who has. you can really screw things up very quickly.

[yor_on]

Do a 'system restore' if it's windows, set it to some days before you found the problem, if that doesn't help? Need to look at processes, assuming you don't have some corrupted, but you need to know what should be there preferably (cntrl alt del) and then close the ones you don't recognize, one at a time, to see if it speeds it up.

[yor_on]

And no, I don't use U-tube at all with my connection Too expensive. So, either we need a good explanation, or we need to go out and create one here

[yor_on]

the problem is with the nomenclature there. People using far and near fields either know when it's appropriate and have a physical meaning, or they don't, parroting it. I prefer as simple words as possible, some may seem simple, from studying the holographic principle, but it's bad practice assuming that everyone else will know.