# Scientists break the speed of light



## JoryGriffin (Oct 20, 2009)

Scientists break the speed of light | Mail Online

Pretty interesting stuff


----------



## synrgy (Oct 20, 2009)

I'm still kinda offended that it's almost 2010 and we still can't teleport yet.


----------



## ma7erick (Oct 20, 2009)

That has to be the most badass research I've seen so far in many years. This reafirms that time travel is possible according to basic physics theory.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 20, 2009)

This is fucking massive news, but the article is over 2 years old?

The bit about turning back time is a load of shit though, it's simple impossible.



synrgy said:


> I'm still kinda offended that it's almost 2010 and we still can't teleport yet.







ma7erick said:


> That has to be the most badass research I've seen so far in many years. This reafirms that time travel is possible according to basic physics theory.



One thing to bear in mind is that the human body simply wouldn't withstand the G force of 186,000 mph. If we can make some sort of chamber that slows G force up considerably then time travel in to the future may be possible, although never into the past.


----------



## orb451 (Oct 20, 2009)

Not to be too pedantic Dave but time travel to the future is already possible, we're doing it right now. See that? Now we're further into the future than we were just a moment ago. But I know what you're talking about, far far off into the future.

Didn't Einstein say at one point that the past, present and future and the boundary that separates them is all an illusion? I agree that there's no way humans could withstand the speed of light physically. 

Have you guys ever heard of John Titor? It was some kind of hoax a few years back but made for good reading. Look him up on Wiki if you get time and want a laugh. Primer is a great movie for time travel done to nerdy excess. As far as actual real time travel is concerned I think we have a better chance of finding a way through/to blackholes and/or wormholes than actually trying to outright propel an object (larger than an electron) to at or near that speed.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 20, 2009)

That's not being pedantic that's stating the obvious...


----------



## K-Roll (Oct 20, 2009)

I think it was once Einstein, who said, that if time travel were possible you would see many guys running all around the world claiming they came from the future..


----------



## Varcolac (Oct 20, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> time travel in to the future may be possible, although never into the past.



Actually there's some neat trick you can do with two colliding black holes, surfing the event horizon as space-time gets twisted into a pretzel. Basically you come out of the knots in the continuum at some time before you came in. 


That'd be why I'm going for a PhD in history rather than astrophysics.

Anyway, Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about it in here somewhere. Think it's about 45 minutes in. A second-grader asks him the question. It's the answer to the question "would, like, a black hole be able to suck in another black hole?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 20, 2009)

It may be possible in space, but not for the human body to withstand and come out on the other side alive.

Interesting vid though


----------



## Metaldave (Oct 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I'm still kinda offended that it's almost 2010 and we still can't teleport yet.



Teleport? Remember Beyond 2000? I don't think anything from that show has appeared this side of 2000 yet 

I'm still waiting for a holodeck!


----------



## synrgy (Oct 20, 2009)

orb451 said:


> Primer is a great movie for time travel done to nerdy excess.



DOPE movie.


----------



## eaeolian (Oct 20, 2009)

OK, that's a day off for both of you to think about it. Shall we go back to being civil here?


----------



## thesimo (Oct 20, 2009)

very interesting stuff. Is this related to quantum entanglement?

Its all very interesting stuff.. Wish I knew more about it.

but yeah you cant turn back time as you cant un-see light waves and make them travel away from you again.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 20, 2009)

Good for this - the more this sort of stuff breaks into the mainstream, the less crazy I sound to the average person. I'm full of seemingly insane ramblings, but I am indeed sane.


----------



## t3sser4ct (Oct 20, 2009)

thesimo said:


> very interesting stuff. Is this related to quantum entanglement?
> 
> Its all very interesting stuff.. Wish I knew more about it.
> 
> but yeah you cant turn back time as you cant un-see light waves and make them travel away from you again.


It's only related in that it's a quantum phenomenon. Tunneling is entirely separate from entanglement.

I don't quite understand from the description how the experiment was set up, but I think I remember reading about this before. Anyway, you shouldn't consider something like this a violation of SR unless it allows you to transfer information faster than light. (This is why entanglement isn't usually seen as a violation of relativity; no information can be communicated FTL.)


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 20, 2009)

Faster than light technology will be the key revolutionary factor in space travel. Hopefully it happens bloody soon, though I doubt it.


----------



## leonardo7 (Oct 20, 2009)

Regardless of what science proves is possible, on thing is for sure, we will never be able to travel backwards in time because it is logically impossible and will never and can never happen.


----------



## orb451 (Oct 20, 2009)

Leonardo, you say that with a lot of authority, and I can understand your view with current technology, but don't you think traveling back might *at some point* in the distant future be possible? Perhaps it will only allow traveling back to the point where the machine is created... maybe something different, who knows? Have you heard of the many worlds theory? Perhaps traveling back in time is/will be possible but we'll discover that there are MANY, perhaps an INFINITE amount of "pasts" to go to.

Just an idea....


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 20, 2009)

leonardo7 said:


> Regardless of what science proves is possible, on thing is for sure, we will never be able to travel backwards in time because it is logically impossible and will never and can never happen.



Meh I honestly think anything is possible. At the end of the day, all life as we know it boils down to yes or no decisions and processes. These are so intricate our minds cannot possibly grasp them, but they work in near enough the same way as a computer. Algorithims are life processes and if put into a powerful enough computer, could be predicted, and if predicted, rewritten and reversed or refined, then all you would need is the infinitely powerful technology to somehow reverse those processes. Not easy, but theortically as plausible as many other theories put out today.







Or, you could do this :


----------



## zimbloth (Oct 20, 2009)

vampiregenocide said:


> Meh I honestly think anything is possible. At the end of the day, all life as we know it boils down to yes or no decisions and processes. These are so intricate our minds cannot possibly grasp them, but they work in near enough the same way as a computer. Algorithims are life processes and if put into a powerful enough computer, could be predicted, and if predicted, rewritten and reversed or refined, then all you would need is the infinitely powerful technology to somehow reverse those processes. Not easy, but theortically as plausible as many other theories put out today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good old PBF, I miss that comic


----------



## darren (Oct 20, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> One thing to bear in mind is that the human body simply wouldn't withstand the G force of 186,000 mph.



G-forces aren't caused by travelling at a constant speed. They're caused by acceleration (and deceleration). We're already traveling at about 67,000 mph as we orbit the Sun on our little blue planet.

The real issue is that it's been widely argued that there isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate matter to the speed of light. Bypassing the whole "light barrier" seems like an amazing development. Remember... they once thought the sound barrier couldn't be crossed, either.


----------



## ellengtrgrl (Oct 20, 2009)

JoryGriffin said:


> Scientists break the speed of light | Mail Online
> 
> Pretty interesting stuff


 
Yes it is. I remember having to take Quantum Physics/Mechanics for Engineerinf Degree #1 (Nuclear Engineering). Other than by certain invalid math tricks (assuming that matter is really an enclosed wave, you could "prove" that the propogation velocity of this enclosed wave was faster than light), it was always assumed that C was a pretty hard constant. I'd like to see the math for this experiment.



t3sser4ct said:


> It's only related in that it's a quantum phenomenon. Tunneling is entirely separate from entanglement.
> 
> I don't quite understand from the description how the experiment was set up, but I think I remember reading about this before. Anyway, you shouldn't consider something like this a violation of SR unless it allows you to transfer information faster than light. (This is why entanglement isn't usually seen as a violation of relativity; no information can be communicated FTL.)


 
Quantum tunneling is also used to describe how transistors and diodes (both used in sold state electronics) work. Tunneling (math) functions deal with number series, and statistical distributions to a large extent. Throw in some Calculus, and it gets kind of funky!



darren said:


> G-forces aren't caused by travelling at a constant speed. They're caused by acceleration (and deceleration). We're already traveling at about 67,000 mph as we orbit the Sun on our little blue planet.
> 
> The real issue is that it's been widely argued that there isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate matter to the speed of light. Bypassing the whole "light barrier" seems like an amazing development. Remember... they once thought the sound barrier couldn't be crossed, either.


 
Very true. The issue presented by relativistic physics, is that your mass increases, as velocity increases. In essence your state approaches that of a singularity/black hole as you get closer to C. In other words, not only does your mass increase towards infinity, your volume decreases towards zero, and time slows towards zero. These are the same conditions encountered with a black hole. Therefore, the law of diminishing returns REALLY rears its ugly head up, in that for a huge amount of energy expenditure at speeds approaching C, there is little to no increase in velocity.

An interesting tidbit - we probably already have the means to build an interplanetary vessel, that would in a pinch, be a slow starship. The design's been around since the 60s. I'm taking about the Orion Project. In a nutshell, you put a huge curved shield behind a ship (sort in a parabolic antenna shape). What you do, is set off a nuke behind the shield. The blast from the nuke pushes against the shield, and propels the ship forward. Now, to get serious speed, you need keep on setting off nukes behind the shield. So you don't get shook apart, the shield is connected to the ship, by huge shock absorbers. While an Orion Ship won't get you up close to light speed, it'll still get you up to about .1c or .2c. In about 50 years, you could reach Alpha Centauri.

Why hasn't it been built? A couple of reasons:

1. Since the 60s, nukes have been banned from space.
2. Probable concerns about having adequate radiation shielding for the passengers, and how well the structure of a ship would hold up to the stress of umpteen nuke blasts.

It's already been tried with models that used high explosives. They worked quite well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)


----------



## AJ_NAZEL (Oct 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I'm still kinda offended that it's almost 2010 and we still can't teleport yet.


 
True, but on the nanoscale we can teleport particles underneath a river with fiber optic wires. I read this in Michio Kaku's "Physics of the Impossible."


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Oct 21, 2009)

"Sir, do you know how fast you were going?"

"No."

"In excess of 186,000 miles per hour...
And in these parts, we obey the laws of special relativity."

*shrip*


----------



## JBroll (Oct 21, 2009)

darren said:


> G-forces aren't caused by travelling at a constant speed. They're caused by acceleration (and deceleration). We're already traveling at about 67,000 mph as we orbit the Sun on our little blue planet.
> 
> The real issue is that it's been widely argued that there isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate matter to the speed of light. Bypassing the whole "light barrier" seems like an amazing development. Remember... they once thought the sound barrier couldn't be crossed, either.



Good call on the g-force correction... on a related note, it'll take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive particle to the speed of light (although we can get pretty damned close), and we thought that the sound barrier's infeasibility was a *practical* - not a *theoretical* - limitation. Even if the fabric of spacetime itself didn't hate our guts, either we'd be applying increasing force to an object of increasing mass (both tend to infinity) for an infinite period of time or relativity is screwed.

AJ, tread carefully with Michio Kaku's stuff... very easy to misread. 

One cause for concern here is the age and *total* lack of reference given in the article. Don't you think we'd have seen *much* more about this? All they said was "Ooh, fancy sciencey handwaving and a picture of Einstein, we're going to tell you cool shit happens but our Science and Technology section is apparently allergic to science... MAGIC!"

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 21, 2009)

JBroll said:


> One cause for concern here is the age and *total* lack of reference given in the article. Don't you think we'd have seen *much* more about this? All they said was "Ooh, fancy sciencey handwaving and a picture of Einstein, we're going to tell you cool shit happens but our Science and Technology section is apparently allergic to science... MAGIC!"
> 
> Jeff



Perchance a case of don't believe everything you read on the internet?


----------



## JBroll (Oct 21, 2009)

...or in the newspapers... or in anything that tries to discuss physics other than a proper physics text...

Jeff


----------



## El Caco (Oct 21, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> The bit about turning back time is a load of shit though, it's simple impossible.



Tell that to these guys 

Large Hadron Collider 'Being Sabotaged from the Future' - Inventions | Patents | New Inventions | Innovation - FOXNews.com
Can God particle travel back in time to kill itself? - Asylum UK | For All Mankind -- Men's Lifestyle, Opinion and Humour


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 21, 2009)

s7eve said:


> Tell that to these guys
> 
> Large Hadron Collider 'Being Sabotaged from the Future' - Inventions | Patents | New Inventions | Innovation - FOXNews.com
> Can God particle travel back in time to kill itself? - Asylum UK | For All Mankind -- Men's Lifestyle, Opinion and Humour



 Metal as fuck.

Imagine god with Frank Mullen's vocal styling...

I WANT...TO KILL.......................MYSELF *Dun dun dun dunununununun dun dun*


----------



## JBroll (Oct 21, 2009)

Kookily-conjectured-for-the-purpose-of-being-completely-misunderstood as fuck is a bit closer, but it's hard for Suffocation to make things not sound good...

Jeff


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 21, 2009)




----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 21, 2009)

s7eve said:


> Tell that to these guys
> 
> Large Hadron Collider 'Being Sabotaged from the Future' - Inventions | Patents | New Inventions | Innovation - FOXNews.com
> Can God particle travel back in time to kill itself? - Asylum UK | For All Mankind -- Men's Lifestyle, Opinion and Humour


----------



## dmguitarist99 (Oct 24, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> *One thing to bear in mind is that the human body simply wouldn't withstand the G force of 186,000 mph*. If we can make some sort of chamber that slows G force up considerably then time travel in to the future may be possible, although never into the past.




That'd be hilarious to see though


----------



## Koshchei (Oct 29, 2009)

This is BS. Article Age + no significant developments since. Probably a case of sloppy methodology followed by a call to the media, rather than a peer reviewed journal article.

Remember that chunk of meteor from Mars a few years ago that supposedly contained non-terrestrial microbial life? Same thing. Somebody got super excited about nothing and didn't let science do its thing before calling the press.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Nov 1, 2009)

JBroll said:


> AJ, tread carefully with Michio Kaku's stuff... very easy to misread.



I love practically everything Michio does.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Nov 1, 2009)

Quantum Tunneling may seem like its bending the rules, but it does not transmit information, therefore, relativity is still correct.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 2, 2009)

I'm curious if anyone's throught about this. 
How fast are we really moving? Earth is spinning around the sun, the sun is spinning around the milky way, and that is presumably spinning around a larger structure, which could be spinning around yet another, and another, and another. 
Could we be moving through space at a much higher speed than we think?]


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 2, 2009)

silentrage said:


> I'm curious if anyone's throught about this.
> How fast are we really moving? Earth is spinning around the sun, the sun is spinning around the milky way, and that is presumably spinning around a larger structure, which could be spinning around yet another, and another, and another.
> Could we be moving through space at a much higher speed than we think?]


Speed is meaningless unless you specify something as a reference. We're actually moving at a very high percentage of the speed of light relative to some objects in the universe (or _vice-versa_, depending on how you look at it). Check out the concept of relative motion.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 2, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> Speed is meaningless unless you specify something as a reference. We're actually moving at a very high percentage of the speed of light relative to some objects in the universe (or _vice-versa_, depending on how you look at it). Check out the concept of relative motion.



I mean how fast we're moving relative to 0, if there is such a thing.
Reading asimov gave me the idea. ^^
I think "a high percentage of the speed of light relative to some objects in the universe" is fairly adequate.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 2, 2009)

There is absolutely no such thing as a universal '0'. Period. That's the problem.

Jeff


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 2, 2009)

There is no absolute reference frame (or "0"). All motion is relative. If you are motionless relative to one object, you will still be in motion relative to many others.

Ninja'ed.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 2, 2009)

Yeah... that's a little disappointing. 
If there was a big bang, then wouldn't the position of the singularity be one of 0 velocity?


----------



## JBroll (Nov 2, 2009)

The 'singularity' was *everywhere*, if I understand what you're meaning. 

The best we can do is find an approximately inertial frame of reference and hope for the best.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Nov 2, 2009)

Good enough for me. 

Then what exactly satisfies "speed of lighty" for us? It would have to be the speed of light in addition to whatever velocity we're already traveling at through space as a result of the gravitational effect of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and whatever else we happen to be centered around. 
That would mean if there happened to be a point in the universe that was not moving, a "Center" point if you will, which there is not, we could already be moving at light speed or beyond relative to it, but it wouldn't matter because we're not moving at light speed relative to ourselves?


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 2, 2009)

The universe isn't expanding from a single point outward. If that were the case, there would be a literal center of the universe (there is not, according the the widely accepted cosmological models). You've probably heard the balloon analogy before, so I'll spare you that, but that's basically what's happening.

For the singularity to have an absolute position, the universe itself would have to have an absolute position, and that wouldn't make much sense, because the universe _is_ space; it is therefore meaningless to refer to "outside of the universe". (Similarly, the universe is also time [space-time, remember?], so it's equally meaningless to speak of "before" or "after the universe".)


----------



## JBroll (Nov 2, 2009)

Read a book on relativity, that'll take care of things for you. Hell, even the Wikipedia page would be a start.

Everything sees light moving at the same speed. The way high speeds 'combine' is not elementary-school addition - that works as a decent approximation at very low speeds, but not forever. Since the speed of light is a universally-observed constant, it does us precisely no good to appeal to it for help finding a 'point that isn't moving'.

Your head is still clouded by the assumption that 'moving' is something that doesn't involve a frame of reference.

Jeff


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 2, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Then what exactly satisfies "speed of lighty" for us? It would have to be the speed of light in addition to whatever velocity we're already traveling at through space as a result of the gravitational effect of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and whatever else we happen to be centered around.


Nope. That's the weird thing about it. No matter how fast you are moving, light still moves at the speed of light. If you are driving down the road at .99 * c and turn on your headlights, the light is still going to be traveling at c.

EDIT: Dammit. Ninja'ed again!


----------



## silentrage (Nov 2, 2009)

Yeah I've heard it, but being not very scientifically inclined it is a little difficult to grasp the concept of how big the universe is.
For example, is it really infinite? I was under the impression that it has an event horizon similar to a blackhole where the rate of expansion moves space and matter apart at the speed of light, so beyond this event horizon no light could reach us and it would appear black. Can we know the nature of existence beyond it?



JBroll said:


> Read a book on relativity, that'll take care of things for you. Hell, even the Wikipedia page would be a start.
> 
> Everything sees light moving at the same speed. The way high speeds 'combine' is not elementary-school addition - that works as a decent approximation at very low speeds, but not forever. Since the speed of light is a universally-observed constant, it does us precisely no good to appeal to it for help finding a 'point that isn't moving'.
> 
> ...



Thanks, my head is still clouded by many more things.

But I was asking in order for us to propell a human being to light speed in order to "time travel" as it were, which frame of reference are we using? I'm still confused on this. You're sayin light speed is a universal constant, but does that mean there is no frame of reference needed?
Do we take our current velocity, just around the galaxy to keep it simple, into account when we accelerate a man to light speed in which case we'd already have a head start, or does it have to be our current velocity + light speed since we're motionless relative to ourselves.

Edit: physics books it is.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 2, 2009)

Infinite... well, we're not running out anytime soon if that's what you mean.

I'd just toss whatever you were told before and check out a few physics books, to be blunt.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Nov 3, 2009)

To respond to your edit...

Don't count on propelling a human to light speed... that little 'finite amount of energy in the universe' limitation will fuck things up very quickly - especially since its friend, a little concern by the name of 'no finite amount of energy is going to propel a massive particle to the speed of light', is so damned persistent - and keep us at much smaller speeds. (Even without that, below high-risk-of-blackout forces it would take a lifetime to go from 0 to c.) There's another bunch of cloudy stuff.

The 'universal constant' thing is that *any* frame of reference we feel like using will see light moving at roughly 2.9979*10^8 m/s.

Jeff


----------



## Ironberry (Nov 3, 2009)

I am so getting extra credit in science class tomorrow!


----------



## JBroll (Nov 3, 2009)

... with old, misunderstood, now-regarded-as-invalid news? Stab your school for me.

Jeff


----------



## guitarplayerone (Nov 3, 2009)

quantum tunneling doesn't technically overcome the speed of light, just shortens the distance necessary to travel, if I understand it correctly.

interesting implications for string theory, and further proof of quantum mechanics


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 3, 2009)

I'm not familiar with any description of quantum tunneling which employs extra dimensions, unless you're getting into extra-dimensional QFT. I think you're confusing tunneling with some hypothetical form of FTL travel.

Tunneling is basically when the wavefunction of an object collapses on the other side of a barrier.


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

If im correct I think the principles of Non Locality and Quantum Entanglement have been breaking _c _for a while now


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 10, 2009)

Wolfenstein said:


> If im correct I think the principles of Non Locality and Quantum Entanglement have been breaking _c _for a while now



Nope. =P

It really depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics, but since no information can be transmitted faster than c, entanglement is not generally viewed as breaking the light-speed barrier.


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> Nope. =P
> 
> It really depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics, but since no information can be transmitted faster than c, entanglement is not generally viewed as breaking the light-speed barrier.


Experiment measures "speed" of the _quantum non-local connection_
A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that the "speed" of the _quantum non-local connection_ (what Einstein called _spooky action at a distance_) has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light. [11] However, modern quantum physics cannot expect to determine the maximum given that we do not know the sufficient causal condition of the system we are proposing.

Source Wikipedia =)

I'm quite certain non locality is not bounded by c 

=)


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 10, 2009)

Again, it boils down to your interpretation; the actual collapse should only (theoretically) be limited by Planck time, but no information is or can be transmitted, so it's not a violation.


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> Again, it boils down to your interpretation; the actual collapse should only (theoretically) be limited by Planck time, but no information is or can be transmitted, so it's not a violation.


 I think the measurement of time in the Wave Function is meaningless as it is instantaneous. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Mark =)


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 10, 2009)

Eh... yes and no. It depends on what you mean.

(If you're already familiar with Planck time, skip the following paragraph.)

If you put the Planck length together with the universal speed limit, c, you can quantize time. (The smallest meaningful unit of time is how long it takes light to travel through the smallest possible unit of space.) So basically, if you divide a second in half, then divide that in half, and continue dividing into smaller and smaller parts, you'll eventually reach the smallest possible length of time, usually called "Planck time". 

Wave-function collapse is still somewhat tricky, and it's the main reason for all of the different interpretations of QM, but I don't think it really makes sense to call the event "instantaneous", unless you're implying that it takes only one unit of Planck time. I _could_ be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure collapse is actually bound by Planck time.


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> Eh... yes and no. It depends on what you mean.
> 
> (If you're already familiar with Planck time, skip the following paragraph.)
> 
> ...


I think you're forgetting Quantum Superposition in this. When an Object is entangled it becomes Superposed with its counterpart any change one of the objects undergoes Literally changes it's partner at EXACTLY the same time. Also Time (planck scale time or other wise) is merely the by product of Entropy in a system expressed in a way which is perceived as time. In reality time does not exist and planck time is a way of defining Quanta inside of an Entropic system. Try reading some Physics Journals on "Thermal Time Theory" as it should clarify how Planck Scale Energies and Planck Time play a role in the measurement of Entropy.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 10, 2009)

Thermal Time Theory? Time for you to start citing your references...

Jeff


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Thermal Time Theory? Time for you to start citing your references...
> 
> Jeff


 
Diamond's temperature: Unruh effect for bounded trajectories and thermal time hypothesis

hf


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 10, 2009)

Wolfenstein said:


> I think you're forgetting Quantum Superposition in this. When an Object is entangled it becomes Superposed with its counterpart and changes to one of the objects undergoes Literally changes it's partner at EXACTLY the same time. Also Time (planck scale time or other wise) is merely the by product of Entropy in a system expressed in a way which is perceived as time. In reality time does not exist and planck time is a way of defining Quanta inside of an Entropic system. Try reading some Science Journals on "Thermal Time Theory" as it should clarify how Planck Scale Energies and Planck Time play a role in the measurement of Entropy.


I think we might have had a slight misunderstanding. I'm not arguing against simultaneity at all (even though I maintain my position that no information can be transmitted this way).

However, I admit I'm not familiar with "thermal time theory". Could you provide a link or two to get me started?

EDIT: Ninja'ed once again... =P


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> I think we might have had a slight misunderstanding. I'm not arguing against simultaneity at all (even though I maintain my position that no information can be transmitted this way).
> 
> However, I admit I'm not familiar with "thermal time theory". Could you provide a link or two to get me started?
> 
> EDIT: Ninja'ed once again... =P


 
I should say I pulled the word Theory out of my ass as its 4am here

Diamond's temperature: Unruh effect for bounded trajectories and thermal time hypothesis

Its a hypothesis*

My mistake. =/


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 10, 2009)

No problem. I'm trying to get my head around the abstract, but it's getting late here too, so it's taking some time. =P

I'm not seeing how quantization applies here yet, but I'll do some more reading.

For reference:



> The thermal time hypothesis maintains that: (i) time is the physical quantity determined by the flow defined by a state over an observable algebra and (ii) when this flow is proportional to a geometric flow in spacetime, the temperature is the ratio between flow parameter and proper time.


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> No problem. I'm trying to get my head around the abstract, but it's getting late here too, so it's taking some time. =P
> 
> I'm not seeing how quantization applies here yet, but I'll do some more reading.
> 
> For reference:


 I beleive this Hypothesis is being applied to Theories surrounding Quantum Gravity.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 10, 2009)

How much study have you done in physics?

Jeff


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> How much study have you done in physics?
> 
> Jeff


*How relevant is this question regarding my citation you requested?
*


----------



## JBroll (Nov 10, 2009)

It's curiosity.

Jeff


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 10, 2009)

From the abstract, that article only seems to be describing an effect of time and entropy with regards to the unconfirmed Unruh effect. Would you happen to have access to the full text?

From what I've found, the thermal time hypothesis is just a hypothesis with potential applications in certain theoretical frameworks, not an accepted model. I'm not trying to discredit it, since I barely grasp it right now, but I've never even encountered it before.


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 10, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> From the abstract, that article only seems to be describing an effect of time and entropy with regards to the unconfirmed Unruh effect. Would you happen to have access to the full text?
> 
> From what I've found, the thermal time hypothesis is just a hypothesis with potential applications in certain theoretical frameworks, not an accepted model. I'm not trying to discredit it, since I barely grasp it right now, but I've never even encountered it before.


 Technically speaking most aspects of Quantum Mechanics are best guess Frameworks that come under the banner of M-Theory , it's nice that Quantum Mechanics has brought us the solid state transistor and various other technologies but I doubt we'll live to see these theories proved beyond a reasonable doubt =/


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 10, 2009)

Wolfenstein said:


> Technically speaking most aspects of Quantum Mechanics are best guess Frameworks that come under the banner of M-Theory , it's nice that Quantum Mechanics has brought us the solid state transistor and various other technologies but I doubt we'll live to see these theories proved beyond a reasonable doubt =/


I'm kind of an existentialist, so for me, nothing will ever be proven beyond doubt. But I digress.

Anyway, I shouldn't have to tell you the difference between theory and hypothesis. Like I said, though, I'm not trying to discredit the idea. I just don't see it as a solid basis for an argument about something as fundamental as time.


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 11, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> I'm kind of an existentialist, so for me, nothing will ever be proven beyond doubt. But I digress.
> 
> Anyway, I shouldn't have to tell you the difference between theory and hypothesis. Like I said, though, I'm not trying to discredit the idea. I just don't see it as a solid basis for an argument about something as fundamental as time.


 Time is a human construct. It doesn't exist in reality.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 11, 2009)

That's it, I'm straight the fuck out of this rubbish.

Jeff


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 11, 2009)

JBroll said:


> That's it, I'm straight the fuck out of this rubbish.
> 
> Jeff


 Bye Jeff.


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 11, 2009)

Wolfenstein said:


> Time is a human construct. It doesn't exist in reality.


Measurement of time is an artificial concept, but I assure you, time does exist.



JBroll said:


> That's it, I'm straight the fuck out of this rubbish.
> 
> Jeff


=(


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 11, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> Measurement of time is an artificial concept, but I assure you, time does exist.
> 
> 
> =(


 
Black holes ?


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 11, 2009)

The universe?


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 11, 2009)




----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm not watching that right now. I looked at the uploader's other videos, and they appear to be mostly metaphysical garbage. I might take a look later, but I'd be willing to bet that this is just more nonsense along the lines of _What The Bleep...?_


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 11, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> I'm not watching that right now. I looked at the uploader's other videos, and they appear to be mostly metaphysical garbage. I might take a look later, but I'd be willing to bet that this is just more nonsense along the lines of _What The Bleep...?_


Dr Brian Greene is a renowned physicist working with CERN and although this isnt the entire program if you can find a full length version he converses with many leading physicists whose over all opinion is that Time as a concept is indefinite and possibly non existant. Also I would argue that there is infact very little in physics where time is expressly described accurately at all.


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 11, 2009)

Yes, I know of Brian Greene. I didn't realize that was his video. I still haven't watched it.

I know there are radical theories about time, and some of them make sense, but it's foolish to say time doesn't exist. Perhaps it's not as we perceive it, but it does exist.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 11, 2009)

^Hey, something I'm interested in.
Could you list some sources that explain the nature of time, or at least as it's generally agreed upon to be?


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 11, 2009)

t3sser4ct said:


> Yes, I know of Brian Greene. I didn't realize that was his video. I still haven't watched it.
> 
> I know there are radical theories about time, and some of them make sense, but it's foolish to say time doesn't exist. Perhaps it's not as we perceive it, but it does exist.


My comment "black holes" was basically me trying to point out that time does not exist at a Singularity. Which proves my point that for some part of the universe time really does not exist. And further more if you trace Universal inflation backwards to before the big bang time again ceases to exist.



silentrage said:


> ^Hey, something I'm interested in.
> Could you list some sources that explain the nature of time, or at least as it's generally agreed upon to be?


Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once you get an idea of the standard model , start looking at topics such a "String Theory" and "Quantum Field Theory". Time and space are linked in Relativity but they begin to break down when you look at things like "blackholes" or Singularities.


----------



## t3sser4ct (Nov 11, 2009)

Wolfenstein said:


> My comment "black holes" was basically me trying to point out that time does not exist at a Singularity. Which proves my point that for some part of the universe time really does not exist. And further more if you trace Universal inflation backwards to before the big bang time again ceases to exist.


 Time is a component of the universe. Just because it theoretically ceases under some circumstances doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The way I look at it, since you're dealing with infinity, a singularity is essentially a breach in the universe, so it's perfectly acceptable for time and space to stop behaving normally under such circumstances.



silentrage said:


> ^Hey, something I'm interested in.
> Could you list some sources that explain the nature of time, or at least as it's generally agreed upon to be?


I'd recommend starting with relativity if you haven't already. Specifically, check out the concept of the universe as four-dimensional space-time. Any good pop-physics book should cover it, but check out stuff by Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, and Michio Kaku.


----------



## Wolfenstein (Nov 11, 2009)

T3sser4ct im not great with explaining these concepts (its possibly my weakest area) but this is definitely an interesting topic and I think it would be cool to carry it on for sure. My MSN addy is on my profile feel free to add me to talk about Physics any time. =)

Mark


----------

