Pugdaddy

My original thought was that time slows close to a massive object. The more massive, the larger the gravitational gradient in the vicinity of the object. An object massive enough to slow time any appreciable amount would have a gradient sufficient to stretch and compress anything into strings of spaghetti as it approached the object. But if the object was a spherical shell, something or someone could exist inside the hollow sphere experiencing the time dilation and avoiding the tidal forces that would be present/deadly outside the shell. You would probably need to place the object/person inside the shell and then increase the mass of the shell or else I don't see how else to get inside once the mass was sufficient enough to have a significant time dilation. And then remove the mass to get them out.

I read the PDF file... well sort of. The math is beyond my capability, but I think I got the jist of it. The interferometer method measures change in spacial distance between the test masses and the atomic clock method measures change in the tick rates of the atomic clocks. Sound right? Can they really quantum entangle the clocks to achieve improved timing precision?

I found this, http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00996

Would the Gravitational wave cause the NIST-F2 atomic clock in Bolder, CO to lose/gain time? Just curious.

I guess the only advantage would be that on a very massive shell, there would be no acceleration or tidal forces inside to squash or pinch you.

Thank you for your replies. Time travel maybe wasn't the right terminology, Slowing time inside the shell? Would the gravitational potential at all points inside the sphere be the same as on the surface of the shell? In which case time would pass the same inside the shell as on the surface?

I am not sure if this is the proper place to ask this, but I am sure someone will direct me to the right place if this is not. I was wondering what the mass and radius a spherical shell would need to be to significantly slow time inside the shell as opposed to outside the shell. Could such a shell be constructed to time travel into the future at any significant rate.

I watched Craig Venter on Ted TV annouce the first sythetic cell. http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html So haven't we already created sythetic life?

Since sperm only carry one set of chromosomes, put together randomly from the two sets of the donor's parents, how many sperm would you need to be sure that all the genetic material is present in each of the two sets of chromosomes of the donor? Reason I am asking is that I breed Pugs. We have a susceptability test for Pug Dog Encephalitis. Works great for live dogs as it is just send a cheek swab in and you get your answer. There are frozen straws of dogs that have long passed on. I would like to know if these deceased Pugs are carrying the susceptable genes. Each straw contains about 5 million sperm.

This discussion on warp drive is concentrated on interstellar travel. I would think that a more practical application would be a global transportation system. Jump in a bubble in New York and instantly get out in LA. Send anything anywhere on the globe instantly to another global location. Is this more achievable than interstellar travel? Or do the same problems and energy budget exist regardless of distance? Just a thought.

Is it agreed among physicists that the proton is not really made up of just 2 up quarks and 1 down quark? It is really made up of an unknown but extremely large number of up, down, charmed and strange quarks, plus gluons and that on average there are two extra up quarks and a down quark? Does this account for all the particle that are produces when they are collided at the LHC.

I have been here for a while now and made a few posts. Without knowing my background, I realize it makes it hard for some of you to respond as you don't know what level of understanding, education I have. My real name is Tom and I am a retired Firefighter from Canada. Pugdaddy comes form the fact that I breed Pugs. I was a Firefighter for 30 years and retired a couple of years ago. I did not go to University. I have regretting the lack of formal education, but not the decision to be a Firefighter as it was a very rewarding career. I have taken courses in Calculus and finite mathematics and have watch many lectures on the internet. I certainly am not an expert, but I am learning. Hopefully I can continue to learn through this forum. Thanks everyone for patience in my learning experience.

"Perpetual motion machine for sale" .... Just needs starter!

I should also add with a wild imagination.

Thank you all for your replies. I do not think you can compare momentum and spin in this case. The initial condition of when the electrons were created dictates or correlates the momentum. EPR believed that this was the case for spin as well. They did not like the quantum mechanical approach that the electrons were in a superposition(a mix of all possible spin states) of spin states and thought that the initial condition imparted a kind of DNA in each particle that predetermined what they would do once they are separated. Like a pair of gloves where the LH glove is put in one box and the RH glove is put in the other box. One box is sent somewhere and when the box is opened and found to be LH you know the other box contained the RH glove. In momentum the initial conditions sets the velocity. Spin is not set in the initial condition. The expectation value for each electron is 0. There is no unique eigenvalue = 1 for either. But once one is measured, there is an eigenvector with eigenvalue = 1 for the other electron. Since the act of measuring the one electron instantaneously gives the the other electron an eigenvector for which it's eigenvalue = 1, they must be in communication with each other. John Bell proved that the DNA explanation could not be correct and it would seem the GR prohibits instantaneous information transfer. So that leaves??? I was trying to think outside the box and ask what else could link the two electrons. The only thing I could come up with is that they both exist in spacetime and if space time is a "thing" then it might provide the mechanism for this. We know that the expansion of space does not obey the speed of light. I was just thinking out loud. I am not an expert. Just an old retired guy with too much time on my hands.

If two electrons are put in close proximity they will in a given time become entangled with each other. One will be spin up and the other will be spin down, but which one is spin up and which one is spin down is not known. If they are separated by any distance when the spin of one of the electrons is measured and found to be spin up or spin down the other entangled electron will always be measured with the opposite spin. How does the one electron communicate the information to the other electron to spin opposite?

Superluminal information transfer is not permitted outside of the system, but the effect is nonlocal — internal workings are not subject to the same constraint. So if spacetime is part of the system, the effect could be considered local? Or am I missing the point?

Can someone explain the following? If an observer is watching a point on a rotating plane, does not the circumference decrease due to length contraction and yet the radius stays the same. Would this not change the pi ratio of radius to circumference?

I have a question about entanglement. Is it assumed that the entangled particle are entangled with each other? Is that what leads to the conclusion that "spooky action" is either a result of instantaneous transfer of information or a hidden variable. It is pretty much accepted that violations of the speed of light information transfer is not possible and Bell pretty much disproved the hidden variable with A not B + B not C is equal or greater that A not C. Is that it or is there another option? Is it possible that the particles are entangled with spacetime and every point in spacetime is instantaneously sensitive to changes in every other point in spacetime. I am not an expert, so if I am way off base here I apologize.

This is interesting and maybe even counter-intuitive. In the first round I have 1 chance in 3 to chose the money door. Which also means that I have 2 chances in 3 that I picked the empty door. The key is that the host knows what door the money is behind and opens one of the two doors that were empty. I have two choices now stay or switch. If I stay, I can only have the money door if I picked it in the first round which is 1 chance in 3. If I switch, I can only win if I picked the empty door in the first round. Since my chances of choosing the empty door in the first round is 2 in 3, I also have a 2 in 3 chance by switching in the second round. If the host did not know what door the money was behind and opened a door randomly, then the odds would be the same for staying or switching.

Ok thanks and I was thinking of GR. I think where I went wrong is that I knew photons felt gravity, but since they have no mass, I didn't think they could generate a gravitational field.

Can you think of fermions as "things" that distort space? And bosons as "things" that do not distort space? If that is true then does it not follow that once a region of space is distorted in some configuration intrinsic to some fermion, that only that configuration(fermion) can distort(occupy) that region of space. And since bosons do not distort space they are unrestricted as to what regions of space they can occupy.

I am not sure if this is helpful. Even though dividing by 0 is undefined in mathematics, dividing by 0 in reality is a useful concept. I believe math is here mainly to allow us to describe the physical world. The whole concept came from the need to interact with the world. Cave men knew nothing about math, but they knew it was harder to climb up than down. And if he brought home an antelope, he didn't have to hunt as often as when he brought home a rabbit. Throughout the years humans just invented more ingenious ways to describe our world. Euler made e so powers were easier to work with. When mathematics can't give us the answers we want or know exist, sometimes we have to ask the question in different ways. Take velocity. It is the instantaneous speed at a single point in space and time. Which in essence is division by 0. Newton and Leibniz and some others got around this by introducing the concept of a limit. This concept allows us to divide by numbers closer and closer to 0. By doing this we approach some number which would be the answer if math allowed us to actually divide by 0. So even though math may not always be able to give an exact answer, it can get arbitrarily close enough to not matter. Since pi doesn't have an exact solution, when you divide by pi you get a fraction that doesn't really have an exact value, so is division by pi or e undefined too? I don't know, but can we use it to describe the physical world? Yes(pi r^2)(e^i theda). And regardless of whether math allows us to divide by 0, pi, e or not, it gets us close enough to the exact answer as we need.

I was thinking that this might be an analogy for entanglement using the flipping of a fair coin. The outcome after each flip of the coin will be either heads or tails. If you flip the coin a number of times and keep a count of the number of times the outcome is heads and the number of times the outcome is tails, the expected or expectation value will be equal numbers of tails and heads. The difference between the number of head outcomes and tail outcomes should be # Heads - # Tails = 0. The actual number of head outcomes and tail outcomes at any given number of flips may not be the same. You could look at the outcome or state of the coin (head or tail) as being entangled in the sense that each flip you make is random and could be either a head or a tail, but the running total of head outcomes and tail outcomes are tending toward being an equal number. The outcome of each flip, heads or tails is totally random on an individual flipped bases. But, even though each flip of the coin is totally random, there is an underlying connection or entanglement between the outcomes. I hope this makes sense and give offers some insight.

The idea that the Universe is the shaped of a dodecahedron is not so crazy. Luminet looked at the data from the WMAP on Microwave Background Radiation. MBR is really left over sound waves from the Big Bang. When a guitar string vibrates, it's wavelength can only be as long as the string. Luminet reasoned that they should find in the MBR, if the Universe was infinite, very long wavelengths, but the longer wavelengths were missing in the MBR. This he concluded meant the Universe was finite. He then looked for a shape that fit the vibrations in the MBR and the dodecahedron was the perfect shape. You can view the video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORSqcaqkI08