Alright, isn't it obvious that if black holes swallow light, something must be faster than light? [huh]
I speak as a non-scientist, so I don't know what is the faster thing, why or how, these are merely thoughts.
-Infernity
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:18 PM
Posted 10 July 2006 - 05:48 PM
Edited by brainbox, 10 July 2006 - 06:24 PM.
Posted 10 July 2006 - 07:32 PM
Alright]
I speak as a non-scientist, so I don't know what is the faster thing, why or how, these are merely thoughts.
-Infernity
Posted 11 July 2006 - 06:52 AM
I have that all the time ^^Edit: I mean, gravity fields with high differentials or gradients wrt. location... (don't know the exact English term and no time to look it up either)
Heh the first t place I checked:There are theoretical objects called tachyons that move faster than light. There are some other things (like quantum entanglement) that appear to transmit information faster than light.
I always said that once we will move at light speed or more or whatever, it will be by transforming ourselves into information, and not by inventing something to take us as fast.• tachyon
n. hypothetical particle which is smaller than an atom and travels faster than the speed of light (Physics)
And I was wondering where did our mate go. Nice to see you here again.where our theory stands, the speed of light is but a natural constant. It is a core axiom for Einstein's "Torat Ha'yacha'sut". Why is it 3x10^8 m/s ? - -for the same reason there is this unusual force we call "gravity" and all other natural phenomena and laws. how come all these laws and known phenomena are as they are? -because.
Nature has its hidden reasons, or no "reasons" at all all as we know and define em' ;-)
Where we stand, the fastest speed measured of travelling information is the speed of light... - so, until we find other empirical facts - this is where our scientific "knowledge" stands.
the tachyon theory is practically groundless in comparison to the research made in the field of relativity.
-D S
Posted 11 July 2006 - 05:04 PM
Posted 11 July 2006 - 08:43 PM
Posted 11 July 2006 - 09:11 PM
as far as i know, gravity is much faster than light.
i dont think that light has been the recognized fastest thing in a long time.
Posted 13 July 2006 - 09:07 AM
Posted 07 August 2006 - 12:14 PM
Posted 07 August 2006 - 03:24 PM
I don't see the error in logic that you're trying to point out.Alright, isn't it obvious that if black holes swallow light, something must be faster than light?
Posted 07 August 2006 - 06:49 PM
No. Apparent instantaneous information transmission by quantum mechanics is an artifact of the collapse postulate, which according to the majority view of quantum experts these days is a mathematical convenience that does not correspond to underlying reality. If calculations are carried through without wavefunction or state vector collapse, then nothing travels faster than the speed of light, even in quantum mechanics.As to light being the fastest, has the quantum entanglement been refuted or something? last I understood it transmitted information faster than light, if not instantaneously.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:38 AM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:38 PM
Inflationists believe that the universe grew million's of times faster than light for the briefest of moments after the big bang. BTW, no single object or energy packet was actually moving faster than the speed of light during this growth spurt. It's only the apparent growth that appears FTL.Shortly after the Big Bang, spacetime itself was expanding faster than light - 7 times faster, by some estimates. This is interesting to think about.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 04:44 PM
Sorry, duke, I am a little dense I guess. I can plainly see how there is information transmitted at an apparent faster than light speed due to quantum entaglement, but when it comes to this new concept I require further explanation. If a piece of matter (or whatever it was before it became matter) goes from point A to point B, and it does so at a time interval that is faster than light would make such a journey, how can that be considered "apparent growth that appears FTL"? I am sure there is a reasonable explanation, I just need it spelled out to me, I think.Inflationists believe that the universe grew million's of times faster than light for the briefest of moments after the big bang. BTW, no single object or energy packet was actually moving faster than the speed of light during this growth spurt. It's only the apparent growth that appears FTL.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:54 PM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:57 PM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:08 PM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:14 PM
You shouldn't plainly see it, because there is no information transmitted faster than light in quantum entanglement! Information transmission is an illusion created by the calculational convenience of the Copenhagen Interpretation.I can plainly see how there is information transmitted at an apparent faster than light speed due to quantum entaglement...
Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:19 PM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:23 PM
Thus the word "apparent".Live Forever wrote:
You shouldn't plainly see it, because there is no information transmitted faster than light in quantum entanglement! Information transmission is an illusion created by the calculational convenience of the Copenhagen Interpretation.I can plainly see how there is information transmitted at an apparent faster than light speed due to quantum entaglement...
With inflation, the point is that Relativity is not being violated because spacetime itself is expanding. So inflation is not "faster than light travel" in the sense of violating Relativity. However inflation is faster than light travel in the sense that if you launched a light beam during the early moments of the universe from point A, it would NEVER reach point B unless point B was very close by. Actually this experiment has been done for us in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. CMB photons are a wall of "light" 15 billion light years away, but according to inflation the whole universe is orders of magnitude bigger than this (perhaps as much as 10^1000 times bigger). Except for our own tiny neighborhood (made of parts infinitesimally close to us when inflation began) most of the universe is causally disconnected from us, and forever inaccessible.
The example I've usually heard used is a balloon. Get a balloon, and put little ants on it. The ants can walk around, albeit very slowly. Let's say the fastest an ant can walk is c, the speed of light. c in this case will be very small, perhaps a few centimeters per second.
If you now took this balloon, partially inflated, with a bunch of ants on it, and used an air compressor to expand the balloon really fast, while the ants continued to walk around on the balloon, then the ants could spread apart from each other at faster than c. The ants would not exceed c relative to the balloon material under their six little scurrying legs. And ants that are very close to each other will not move apart very quickly due to balloon expansion. But ants that are far apart will move away from each other at speeds well in excess of c.
Over very small distances, nothing is moving faster than light. Each ant is walking at a speed less than c, relative to the balloon material under its feet. If you measure the distance between two particular ants that are, say, 2 cm apart when you start inflating the balloon, they might be 4 cm apart a second later (if the balloon doubles in size), even disregarding the ants' walking. This is a little under c.
But a couple ants that were 10 cm apart before will now be 20 cm apart, or 10 cm in one second, well in excess of c.
I can't explain it as well as Duke, so I've tried to make up for it by writing a lot more, in the hopes that I'll have filled in details that I can't convey naturally. Duke said it much more succinctly.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:24 PM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:27 PM
The raisin bread is good because it makes the 3D nature of basic space more apparent, compared with the 2D surface of a balloon.The example I most often read is that of an expanding balloon, but I think the raisin bread is easier to visualize.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:30 PM
Yeah, I think my hangup was not understanding how the universe could expand faster than light when the matter in it can not. I am beginning to conceptualize it much better though now, thanks guys. [thumb]LF, with inflation, each local area of space expands at C, yet the universe expands almost infinitely fast.
Keep in mind, inflation theory is a vastly difficult concept to understand, let alone explain. I don't pretend to understand it beyond a layman's understanding. I have read several good summary articles in Scientific American and Discover magazine on the topic, so maybe those can be searched for. Also, I'm pretty sure Brian Green's latest book covers the topic.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:42 PM
Well, just remember that all speeds are measured relative to space and time. In the balloon example, all speeds are measured relative to the surface of the balloon.Aaah, ok. I think I am beginning to understand. In essence, the expanding of the universe was changing the rules of how it was measured. I guess the hangup I was having was how the universe itself is expanding faster than light. I guess it doesn't have the same rules as the matter contained in the actual universe? In any event, I know that it is true, just have a hard time conceptualizing it.
Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:43 PM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 08:15 PM
Posted 08 August 2006 - 08:53 PM
I don't know about my posts being inflationary, but many might be seen as inflammatory. [tung]LF, maybe this will help you:
Both of us joined Imminst during the same month (i.e. the moment of the Big Bang). My post count represents expansion at the rate of C. And your post count represent inflation theory.
;-)
Posted 09 August 2006 - 12:41 AM
Posted 09 August 2006 - 01:13 AM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users