Dror

Any (cohesive) interaction whatsoever would colapse the wavefunction and therefore colapse the superposition. As a result the entanglment will be dismissed.. The particle "needs" a defenite state when it hits the atom. I know it's nuts.. But that's qunatum mechanics in my understanding. There is no difference between checking the particle's state, and a casual interaction between a particle and an atom. Both colapse the wavefunction. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Janus yes you can. Using quantum mechanics you can forsee all the possible states you might find the particle in. By tinkering with A you essensialy colapse the wavefunction of B and hence you will find B in a state you did not forsee - 0 probability. And take that as communication. However as swansont said, at the first time you check B you colapse both wave functions. This calls for sending a classical signal of "check now" to B just after you tinkered with A. And that's a really funny way of communicating - useless. Now I get it.

As a photon hits an atom it excites it and causes it to accelerate. Isn't that enough? ALL of the matter around you including you is being accelerated by the light that hits it. It's just not enough to beat earth's gravity. And even if it was the effect would have been negligable. However, if you put a book in deep space, and aim a flashlight at it, it'll slowly accelerate due to the energy that hits it. If you attach a huge sail to the book, and shine the sun on it, it'll accelerate faster. A lot faster.

I thought the photoeletric effect accurs only with certein metals.. Guess I was wrong. But, I'm 100% sure that it has nothing to do with how we see.. By the way I know what the photoelectric effect is..

swansont, What you CAN do is check B after the colapse of both, to see if it's current state could have possibly accur without tinkering with A. Put it even more simply, check for B and see if it's in a state of 0 probablity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

By changing orbit, I mean changing orbit inside the atom. As an electron orbiting an atom is hit by enough energy it takes a further orbit around the nucleus. This in turn translates into the atom moving faster. This is the kinetic energy I was talking about. The photo senseitive cells in your eyes need something like 5-6 photons in order to pick up on it and send the signal. They notice the heat cause by this - the kinetic energy. As for the mcdonalds thing, all I meant is that the energy for the signal to your brain comes from the food you eat. The photoelectric effect that accures with certein materials has absolutly nothing to do with this.

I agree they fall at the same rate, that's not what I said. All I said is that the rock will hit first. Due to the moon activly participating and getting closer. The bigger the gravitational field the stronger pull on the moon, hence differnt hit times. This effect will not reveal itself if you throw both the rock and the feather at the same time. The gravitational pull on the moon in that case will be rock+feather, and as they both have the same velocity, it's only logical that the will hit at exactly the same time.

Oh so your eye "knows" when an electron changed orbit? Do you realize what your saying? The photo sensitive cells in your eyes go into action when excited by energy. The cells on your hand also are excited when hit by energy, but they could care less. Ofcourse, the underlieing mechanism is electrons switching orbits, but its really irrelevent. Even a pure reductionist will tell you that. As for the photon translated into electricity that go in your brain. No. The energy for the signal comes from mcdonalds (probably) . This signal passes the value recived by the photo sensitive cell. The photons that hit the sail excite the atoms, causing an increase in kinetic energy. This is equivilent to acceleration. If the sail is big enough in respect to the vessel, it'll make it accelerate. In fact even 1 photon will make it accelerate but no one will notice.

By the same mechanism that enables you to see. Energy accelerates things.. That's not new. Sorry for being a smartass, have no bad intension.

As photons hit matter they translate to kinetic energy. As simple as that. Kinetic energy isn't new, and thats the mistery behind those solar sails. The trick is, if you want any non negligable effect on the vessel, you gotta have huuuuuge sails. As to the paths of different masses along a gravitational field: Let's conduct a thought experiment. Let go of a feather 1 meter from the surface of the moon. Count the exact time it takes it to hit from your perspective. Stay in your perspetive. Now, let go of a rock from the same distance, and count the exact time it takes it to hit the surface. You'll come to see that the rock took less time to get there. This is because it's gravitational pull on the moon is more powerful then the feathers.

swansont so the only "relationship" between the 2 particles is of their wave function? As in you destroyed one = you destroyed the other? I'm trying to understand not to argue.

We already dealt with this.. Photons have 0 rest mass, and 0 energy as a result. but as they go at c (They don't know different), they DO have a mass. (very tiny). So bassicaly if you'll throw an imaginary number of objects (reagrdless of how small) at a huge sail, that is set to accelerate a substantionaly smaller vessel, it'll work. If I made any nasty mistakes correct me.

I meant classically, as in communicating classically. Sorry for misunderstanding. By non classically in that respect I mean communicating with Entangled particles, which I'm still not convinced is not possible. Contradicting it using reletivistic casualty, or lack of, is not the way to go. As the changes to particle B caused by disturbance to particle A (regardless of entanglment being destroyed) do accur at no time at all. And it does not contradict casualty, cause it has nothing to do with reletivity. Thats the way I see it anyway.

But each one's path will not be identical.. This kind of comes as a given logically, and is why it takes mucho mass to trap light into orbit. If u think of 2-3 identical mass planets orbiting each other, you'll come to understand that those effects are relevant even to planet/feather.

Funny thread... Well, classically, nothing can reach C unless it has 0 rest mass, and nothing absolutly nothing can go beyond C, without starting to travel backwards in time. There you have it.. To me that sounds kind of useless in terms if passing someone info and expecting to reach him in the future, like it should.. lol.. As for time travel to the past, enjoy. Put it another way, if you pass info faster then C, the reciever won't get your message. It'll get it before it even wants it. And thats rendered useless.

So theres virtually no difference between why matter is affected by curvature and why energy is affected by curavture. Both convey gravitational fields themselfs. What I don't understand as of your remarks is if theoretically there was a particle that conveys 0 gravity, why would it be affected by other gravity? The way I understand it curved space is gravitatinal attraction. And a gravitational field/curved space regardless of how huge, cannot affect an object with 0 gravity.. (Not talking about photons). So curved space is just an abstraction?

Surely i will not argue with this. You obviously know what your saying. But it still strikes me as odd.. Can you maybe try and explain it non mathematically? This message was meant for atheist.

I fully agree with your first point. I'm having a bit ouf trouble with the second point though. Yes, matter can be converted to energy at extreme conditions, and the same holds for the other way around. Furthermore, even at "non extreme" conditions matter and energy can interact, but with gravity being the middle man for the APPEARENTLY mass related consequences. But after the fact, at our universe as it is, matter isn't energy and energy isn't matter. The confusion can arise from the fact that both matter and energy convey gravitational fields. However this does not mean that energy has mass, it only means that as energy interacts with matter, theres a slight increase to the matters gravitational field. This is firmly backed up by the undeniable fact that no mass whatsoever regardless of how tiny can accelerate to c in this universe's life time. Infinite energy is required for that to happen. And as a result of this fact and the fact that light travels at c - photons are massless. And by massless I mean absolute 0.

Oh, hehe.. No harm done then. Good thing I didn't flame you..

sayonara, the only thing I didn't understand was how come a massless particle is affected by gravity. swanston cleared it out by saying that gravity affects both matter and energy. End of story.

You better do some reading.. In takes infinite energy for a mass to accelerate to light speed, and thats why that wont happen.. Saying that it would take all the energy in the universe is quite silly, as there isn't enough throughout the whole universe. I wouldn't argue with the infinite energy idea as its not my idea.. Furthermore, saying that a massless particle is not entitled to be called a particle, as your saying is ludicrous.. A photon conveys energy, that affects mass. The fact that it conveys extra mass to matter as it hits it does not mean it has mass in itself. The fact that a photon travels at light speed ensures that it's mass is 0. The wierd thing for me WAS that as a massless particle, its still evidantly affected by gravitational fields. But as stated earlier by swansont, gravity affects energy as well.

This will probably not be accurate but forgive me as I'm not a physicist nor close to being one, yet. It is no secret that in order to accelerate a mass to c, you need infinite energy. By intuition I think that as infinity is involved, it doesn't really matter how small the mass is.. It could get closer to c at the same energy as oposed to a bigger mass, but can just keep trying.. I think this has something to do with the expodential nature of energy and velocity. As an example: If I drive my car at 20mph and use up 3 units of energy for that (imaginary numbers), then to reach 40mph i must use 9 units. This is probably not new to any of you. So by accelerating you just increase the demand expodentially. As or not as a result, by saying that mass X needs infinte energy to accelerate to the speed of light, X could be any positive number. It doesn't matter how small. Be gentle if I said something really stupid.

A direct implication of something having mass, is something not reaching the speed of light ever. I'm repeating my self here.. How do you settle this?

Where could I find info about "adiabatic measurements"?

swansont now I get it... So gravity affects the 'forces' as well? Does it affect gluons for example, theoretically? From my point of view it does not matter how weak a gravitational influence is on something, as long as it isn't 0.