SamBridge

Test things? Einstein did experiments with relativity before publishing in 1905?

So he got out a telescope to observe black holes and traveled to the future to 1996 to confirm frame dragging and the strong force doesn't exist and entanglement is deterministic? Or maybe even the great scientists like to play around with physics.

 

I can't say what Einstein's thought process was, but in his published work the idea of c as an ultimate speed limit was a conclusion, not a postulate. The starting point was that c is invariant, and that was already known in electrodynamics.

Well at the early time you could use maxwell's equations to show that the medium for electromagnetic forces should travel at some finite speed, but the ideas were not all connected. I'm telling you Einstein didn't discover what he discovered on accident, he decided to test things, and that's what happened with every other piece of mechanics.

No I'm telling you that the farthest back we can look is 377,000 years after the BB started.

I was talking to the other guy who seems to say otherwise.

But anyway,

 

They ALL are, but most are red shifted down to 2.7 deg K. Do you know what the CMBR is ?

Read what he said.

Take it up with him. And if they're redshifted beyond a certain point anyway, we can't see them. Are you trying to imply that if we had a good enough telescope that could see the faintest possible photons we'd see space pico-seconds after the big bang?

But we do know how quantum teleportation works. There must be a classical communication channel, and an entangled particle, that pass from Alice to Bob.

So throw one end into the black hole and keep one out of the black hole, that's what I'm asking about. At a certain angle after passing the event horizon, it would be impossible for a photon to travel back upwards into the communication device assuming it isn't insanely delocalized or destroyed from tidal forces, however since the device and mass-ful entangled particle can't travel past the speed of light, a photon traveling from the direction of the event horizon would always be able to catch up to it from the frame of the communication device inside the black hole. The only real funny thing to work out, assuming space still exists in some way we think of it inside a black hole, is the timing issue. We would see the device red-shift as it approached the black hole but supposedly never pass the event horizon, but from the entangled particle's frame it didn't see time stop, it can hypothetically still send information from a photon that's behind it.

 

 

 

To me that sounds like speed and (kinetic energy)/density transform the same way in all frames. This doesn't work classically, so it's not apparent to me that relativistically it should magically work. Classically, if I look in a frame where speed has doubled, the KE will be up by a factor of 4, and density will be unchanged.

Well classical non-relativistic mechanics doesn't work like that. Increasing one's speed to an outside frame while near the speed of light takes a lot more energy than if you're going at 2 miles per hour. And, the density may not be changed from the alien's frame, but it can still "appear" dense from someone like hysor's frame. You're semi-right about the density being unchanged, as I keep saying, the same proportion of length contraction applies to everything on the ship, and that means that even though the distance between atoms of the fuel storage from hysor's frame appears closer, if a rulers put up to the fuel storage then hysor would still see that the distance between atoms that creates the density counts the same number of its own contracted units as the aliens do with their normal units that they view.

If the computational theory of mind is correct, our thinking process is of course deterministic.

But if that's true, we should be able to predict every action someone will take in any situation based off their genes, since genes are responsible for the way the brain is shaped and how it adjusts to different environments. But when you say it out loud, that just sounds ridiculous.

I will give you one thing though, which is that even though consciousness rises in different places, we seem to be able to recognize it, so there must be some pattern involved.

But another question is, where is the cut-off? A rock may not have biological information like a brain, but still there are units of information like spin states in photons and vibrations being transferred throughout it. And, if consciousness occurred in machines as you were speculating, it would prove you can have consciousness without being biologically alive which would make the cut-off even less clear. In fact, can something be a "thing" outside of physical space-time? Can I say that the correlation "1+1=2" exists? So if I can, can I say that consciousness is a network of patterns formed by correlations rather than chemicals themselves that would account for it existing in abiotic objects and thus not be tangible? I can't touch "a+b=c," all I can really do is put some markings on a paper and convince myself that those markings represent the variable values denoted as a and b and c, but I will never touch what "c" actually is. So, I think there's more to consider when trying to boil down consciousness to math because mathematics and physical reality don't always agree. What I think and where science seems to be heading with things like putting someone's mind in a computer and teleporting people's consciousness is that instead of saying consciousness is a collection of chemicals, we should instead say its a pattern that can be formed by chemicals or any other arrangement which allows consciousness to have both tangible and intangible qualities. Matter and energy can follow a pattern which is where we see a physical quality, but no amount of physical matter and energy in the universe is going to make the statement "6/3=2" untrue, meaning the statement doesn't physically react with physical processes.

What if god was actually one of those Q beings from startrek just playing a trick on us? Then everyone can be happy, we have an omnipotent seeming life-form that people can point to and an explanation for why little good came from it.

Teleportation requires the transmission of some information from the sender to receiver, as well as an entangled particle. How do either one get out of the black hole?

Well that's what I'm inquiring about. Even though we don't have any proof of the answer either way, I'd still like to think there's a good chance all those scientists are right in their hypothesizing, but I just don't see how.

"one" doesn't enter and exit, one gets destroyed, and a new one with the destroyed photon's properties gets created without traveling through the intervening space, so the question now isn't if photons can travel outside the black hole since we know they can't and they didn't, its if information itself can, or if it doesn't, why doesn't it given the circumstances. Stephen Hawking likes to think there was some way information could escape, and that's why he spent time looking deeper into Hawking radiation.

Eistein looked at the ramification of c being invariant, which was already part of Maxwell's equations. And he derived the results from that observation — he used the framework of existing physics. Teleportation of matter is decidedly not part of existing physics.

But that's exactly it, he said "what if the speed of light really was the ultimate speed limit"? I'm sure you know he spent tons of time hypothesizing while working at a patenting office without necessarily proving anything too, and he predicted things similar to dark energy without a lot of support and things like frame-dragging despite that frame dragging was only confirmed recently, and all that came from was saying "what if I use these numbers instead..."?. Teleportation doesn't have to be something we observe, so that doesn't mean it can't show a contrast to explain why results are the way they are or that we can't mathematically take a look at it. It doesn't matter if we've never observed imaginary space, I can still say "what if u=30000 and b=i? What relativistic speed would I get"? And then I'd just plug in the numbers to see. And if someone got lucky, someone might stumble upon imaginary space one day and find the previous work someone spent on imaginary velocity paid off.

 

I asked for the equations, i.e. a general case.

ok?

w=(u±v)/(1±(u*v/c^2), that's one relevant equation,

L = Lo * sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2), that's another

t = to / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2), yet another

I don't know what you want me to do with them if you didn't like my first attempt.

The volume of the fuel storage is scaled down by a factor of 10/6, but so is everything else, at 80% c anyway. So if in the alien's frame the neutron doesn't have enough energy to ignite the fuel at it's current density, from hysor's frame it won't either because the neutron will appear to be traveling slower towards the fuel storage by the amount necessary to keep the relative difference in energy between the neutron's energy and the energy required to ignite the fuel lower in a similar relative difference due to length contraction and time dilation and the fact that the storage is trying to move away from the neutron, otherwise it should ignite the fuel. So the relative energy required to ignite the fuel decreases due to the higher density, but the neutron still travels slow enough towards the fuel storage from hysor's frame to not ignite it.

If I put rulers next to everything, hysor would see the neutron still traveling the same amount of contracted units per contracted second as the aliens said it traveled in normal units from their frame, but hysor would say they are smaller units compared to his own and thus the neutron would appear to travel slower than it "should" from hysor's frame, and it happens more so when you add time dilation and say the neutron counts units of time slower compared to hysor. The "proportionality" I'm talking about is the length contraction/dilation. As I said, if I put a ruler near a black hole, it will still say 12 of its own inches equals one of its own feet even though the entire ruler itself will be smaller than mine, and you could do a similar thing with time itself if you treat time as just another plain dimension in which its metric contracts, which Einstein did like to do and is also probably why the time dilation equation is so similar to the length contraction equation. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a way to measure time in meters because of that phenomena.

If someone else has a better explanation I'm all for it, but I don't think the answer "that's just how it is, you can't see it any other way" is good enough so that's why I bothered posting.

I am reading these but will wait for the final conclusion you guys reach before I make any concrete replies or questions, if you don't mind hehe

Well I only explained it that way because Swan asked for it. But basically, the same event happens because the relativistic effect affects all components of the situation, not just the nuclear fuel.

 

 

What Einstein did with relativity was self-consistent. And, as it turns out, something that also described how nature behaves. But relativity means that you can't exceed c, which means if you did (as with teleportation) then relativity can't tell you what happens.

So what do you call what I did with the black hole teleportation and time dilation limit as the speed of light approached infinity? Physics is modeled from mathematics, and you can do whatever you want to mathematics to see how things would work with different numbers. Einstein "assumed" time was a dimension that was orthogonal to spacial dimensions without proving it, he assumed it could explain lorentz's transformation effects with space-time. He didn't just modify something, he added a whole new chapter, just as Schrodinger and debroglie at first assumed you could treat matter in terms of waves like in atomic orbitals even though Heisenberg could explain the phenomena with matrices.

Your interpretation of entanglement is faulty.

 

Information propagation is limited to the speed of light.

 

Information is believed to be stored on the event horizon of a black hole and conserved.

This conservation law is a quantum mechanical consequence while black holes are currently understood as classical GR consequence.

We await the unification of the two to get a better understanding of these effects.

The understanding of entanglement isn't faulty, its the transportation of photons that is. Entanglement on its own doesn't transmit information between two points, that's why the disentanglement can happen instantaneously regardless of distance. However, considering the fact that the photon did not travel through the intervening space and thus couldn't have run into the even horizon, how do you resolve this? As I understand it, one photon is destroyed and a new one is created, and It still might take time to measure the whole teleportation event even as if the photon traveled through the intervening space at the speed of light, but there's no physical reason for it to run into the event horizon. I can't think that it would actually violate relativity since the event didn't actually make a photon travel distance over time faster than the speed of light, but maybe there's some conservation flaw.

Anyway that article doesn't work anymore for some reason, so here's this one http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/chinese-physicists-teleport-protons-over-100-kilometers

 

Please show the equations that support the highlighted section.

Before I even attempt to do that, read what I said at the bottom. If it isn't perfect which means I was expecting an error and if you only have something wrong with that component, I'm assuming the rest of it is correct and that's what was wrong. So, considering the fact that I already admitted part of it isn't completely right, instead of merely complaining, why not just do you part to answer the question in the visual way they he actually presented the situation by building off of what I already said and easily, more efficient knock away all the things you're suppose to do by pointing out what's wrong then pointing out how its wrong in relation to the OP that explains how the scenario visually works?

But anyway, here's the math.

Let's assume it takes x joules of energy in a neutron from an inertial frame to ignite the fuel at critical density, or from the frame of the aliens and the frame of the outside observer if they observed the ship standing still. From the frame of the aliens, they will observe the neutron striking the nuclear fuel at whatever the speed they observe if leaving the neutron igniter gun which is probably 20,000 k/s, and the neutron's mass is 1.6749286*10^-27 kg, so E=(m)(v^2) gives us a total of 6.68*10^(-19) joules. Now, let's say x = 7*10^(-19) joules. From the aliens frame, the neutron barely doesn't have enough energy to ignite the fuel. So with what everyone's saying which is "it just happens that events are measured the same order if they are causally connected", it must not have enough energy from the other frame, or from hysors outside frame that observes the ship traveling at near the speed of light or we'd have that crazy duality violation.

So, in order to keep hysor's frame from observing the near-luminal ship from exploding at critical density, here's what happens: Let's say the ships is moving at 80% the speed of light (239833.96 km/s) and the ship is 10 meters long, so the ship will contract to 6 meters giving us the ratio of 6/10, so we know the distance between the neutron gun and the fuel will shrink by the same proportion as well, a ratio of 6/10 making the fuel that much denser if we treat it as a cubical object and it takes less energy, say y joules, enough to create what would be critical density from the aliens frame. From the frame of reference of the nuclear fuel storage, the neutron will strike it more slowly, at a velocity of the difference between the neutron's added and dilated/contracted velocity and the velocity an outside frame observes the ship to be moving because of the fact the ship and the neutron gun is already attempting to move away from the neutron because the neutron is no longer attached to the ship when it leaves the gun, relativistic-ally of course, not just by adding two regular vectors, but using the formula

[math]w = (u+v)/(1+(uv)/(c^2))[/math] W is the velocity hysor will measure that we'll use to get the difference, u is the speed of the ship that already adds to the neutron's initial velocity and v is the extra speed the neutron gained from being fired from the gun, which will turn out to be [ 239833966m/s + 20000000m/s ] divided by something that looks awfully close to length contraction but without the square root which is (1+ (239833966*20000000)/(299792458^2)) = 1.053 so we divide (23983396 + 20000000) by (1.053) to get 24666169.5 which makes sense considering 20000000 isn't that fast compared to the speed of light. So that's the velocity hysor observes the neutron. But now, we use the difference in those speeds to figure out the speed that hysor and the fuel storage agree on the relative velocity that the neutron strikes the fuel storage which is the same as the relative velocity that the neutron gun measures the neutron heading away from it which from the gun's frame is 20,000km/s (200000000m/s)...which turns out to be 239833966m/s and I spent a long time typing this so I'm taking a break now and ill come back to it later since this was the last thing I was working on.

The neutron from hysor's frame will still move 80%c + contracted 20,000km/s, but but hysor and the fuel storage will agree that the neutron still only strikes the fuel storage with the relative contracted difference and not the total 80%c + contracted 20,000km/s as per the fact that the fuel storage is confirmed to be moving away from the neutron in some amount in hysor's frame.

It's a shorter distance to travel, so the neutron will have more relative energy from the frame of reference of the fuel storage right? I know you know that's wrong, the ship is moving, and if the neutron gun is at the back of the ship pointing forward (let's assume it is) and the nuclear fuel is in the front, from the neutron's frame and from hysors frame, hysor and the fuel storage will observe the neutron striking the fuel at what must be a slow enough speed with a low enough relative energy that the 10/6 times greater density will still not be ignited by the neutron traveling the 6/10 shrunk distance in the same metric time between the gun and the fuel with the increased velocity from the gun because the neutron will appear to travel slower than it should have from hysor's frame but still travel the same proportion of contracted units per second in a moving ship as non-contracted units per second in a stationary ship. It's just what I said with a ruler. If I take a ruler in a stationary frame and role a marble by it that says the marble travels 2 inches per second my second, then it moves at 80% the speed of light (ignoring acceleration that would cause the marble to fall to the back of the ship) and someone says they role the marble at 2 inches per second, I'm still going to see that contracted ruler measure the marble as traveling two of its own contracted inches per second even if its not traveling two of my inches per second, so I can still say from my own frame that the marble has the same relative energy from the frame of the person who rolled it before and after traveling near the speed of light if I take into account the length contraction.

However it works out, it has to be something like that, because otherwise if we don't consider the length contraction from a visual standpoint, there's no reason to say the same event must happen in both frames which allow the neutron to travel slower than it should even with the seemingly increased energy from the neutron gun and thus still not have enough energy from velocity to ignite the fuel from hysor's frame and the fuel storage's frame outside of "that's just how its causally connected" which doesn't explain anything.

there is probably some way to augment a gluonic field

There's probably a way for you to understand what I said so that you know what you were trying to suggesting isn't possible too.

Well he does have a point, density can be relativistic. I think the paradox can be resolved by the notion that the length contraction applies to all components of the nuclear device making everything scale down by the same proportion, even the neutron fired at the nuclear fuel. When this happens, the neutron will appear to travel less distance between the neutron gun and the fuel over your measured interval of time and thus have lesser relative kinetic energy that adds to the energy from the motion you observe as the ship heads towards you near the speed of light, so if the neutron doesn't have enough energy to do it on their end, it won't on your end either. The total amount of energy in the system is still conserved, so if its not enough energy, its not enough energy, and if it is, it is, and the only difference is how you measure it. Instead of measuring the neutron being fired from a standing igniter device, it already has a boost in its velocity from the entire ship traveling near light, so when you add addition velocity like when its fired from a gun, the units of distance it measures must be shorter in order not go past the speed of light, and so it will appear to strike the fuel storage will less energy even though its still traveling near the speed of light.

In contracted space, the proportion of energy it takes to ignite a specific density of fuel in proportion to the velocity of the neutron stays the same. Or in other words, If you put a ruler near a black hole or accelerate it to near the speed of light, that contracted ruler will still show that twelve of its own contracted inches make a total of one of its contracted feet, so something traveling 2 meters per second in its frame will still appear to you as traveling two of its own contracted meters per second, just not two of your meters per second.

Or at least that's a start, it probably isn't perfect, but something to work with.

I did not do a full scientific experiment with scales , but I tried it by hands and it worked. I designed a simple device and I have a patent for it.

What you're describing is moving the force of a magnetic field over a distance, except they way you do it doesn't create electricity. You move the magnets initially, then you stop and let one magnet attract which only produces force acted upon the magnets and the increase in height is merely the result of the energy you already put into raising the first magnet. There's not any real energy gain. Half the "energy production" threads involve stuff like this, but people never seem to realize that moving your hands or taking the time to raise something is putting energy into the system at one's own expense and thus not efficient.

In my opinion its only logical to place faith in everything you know,

How do you know what you know is even what you know? The basis for all knowledge we have is epistemological and ultimately based on axioms. And how do you know god doesn't exist? Did you look for him in your basement? Did you check Andromeda? So what logical reason do you have to assume he doesn't exist?

And Phi why do you still only have two stars? Doesn't anyone get a promotion? Or I guess, I only observe from my own point of view, maybe it's a trick and there's some delay in the computer and you've actually already been promoted.

A lot of the older physics says information itself doesn't travel faster than light. In nearly every local frame and on its own even with entanglement, this is true. However, I have seen a lot of news like this http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/09/06/physicists-quantum-teleport-photons-over-88-miles/

in the last few years and even older references to older entanglement experiments, .

Even if information doesn't travel faster than light outside of certain curvatures of space, could have an entangled pair, put one component of the pair inside a black hole and potentially teleport a photon to the outside component of the pair? And why not?

But you aren't evading the laws and axioms of Mathematics for limits...

But you're still getting around the fact that you can't mathematically divide something by zero. Either way, this is purely a semantic argument, it's just a tool for testing what happens at very large or very small values. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

There's LOTS of things that we can't see. Does that mean they don't exist?

Did you read what I said? I was suggesting the use of dark energy like a map as we did with the cosmic microwave background if we ever figured out how to measure it. There still may have been other particles that were free to travel which is actually a good point. Another thing that still doesn't remain clear is the actual total mass and energy in the universe. We can say "there were a billion photons for every nucleon" during the photon epoch, but it doesn't seem like we have anything to suggest any sort of limit or size or content of the entirety of observable matter and space, even with a Hubble volume we can say that any inertial frame would see the same effects of expansion of equal distances away. And how exactly does every point expand from every other point in purely flat space? It would make sense in a curved universe, but apparently we don't see the triangulation that would suggest a curved universe. Although I guess there is a sort of 5th dimension of space that's being mathematically explored and there is more than one way space can be bent, but I'm not sure exactly how it would happen in the case of expanding from every point in flat space.

If photons were so dominant in a period before 380,000 years, why would so few be visible? Matter couldn't have been that dense 380,000 years after the BB, and we can't say the entire universe had a finite size.

And just as a different segue even though I already said it, it still seems weird. If I'm 100% far enough away that space expands faster than light, the photons at that distance will never reach me, but then I move a few light years in a particular direction and now the previously invisible photons in that direction will now eventually reach me at some point in time. I guess it's weird because, couldn't I just move a few light years towards something so that it has the potential to reach me, and then wait until it's potential to reach a particular point has exceeded my original position and then move back to my original position to see those photons that were originally invisible from that position? Something about that doesn't seem right.

 

You seem to take the position that if emitted photons don't enter your eye, there's no way to confirm things.

Well the closer we get to the actual moment of the big band, the less clear things become because we have less information and we also approach seemingly seemingly paradoxical or nonsensical consequences. We observed large amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe first, then tried to explain it. But, we don't see a bunch of multiverses, we don't see a physical boundary past which we can say there's nothingness, we can't even really agree on how many dimensions there are, we don't even see dark energy. But, there were other particles weren't there besides photons weren't there, I wonder if that would amount to anything.

so what? lead or heavy ions when accelerated into a target, can create qgp. Also, since it looks like you need two individual targets very close together, like a nucleus it looks like this theoretical device (if ever to work) would have better purposes for holding together unstable atoms like actinium.

But QGP doesn't hold individually isolated quarks, they are still bound in hadrons. QGP is still very fluid-like in nature because the bonds still exist, they aren't completely free like with a gas. Maybe at some exceedingly high temperature there could be separation, but as said before you're going to end up creating more particles with the energy you put into trying to isolate them. Even though the bonds between nucleons are broken down, the bonds between every quark isn't necessarily broken. I think this can explain the phenomena http://www.quora.com/Particle-Physics/Why-cant-you-get-a-free-quark-1

And, the reason atoms are radioactive is because the nucleus is big enough to exceed the boundaries of gluonic fields, where the strong force as no effect.

But the laws don't work differently. So any speculation is idle.

I guess Einstein should have said goodbye to special relativity then and the several different models of particle physics can't all be correct so they should all be disregarded. Nothing can ever be gained by isolating the effects of certain variables or seeing how things might work differently so we should give up everything. What a great leap forward.

OR, you can be rational and accept there are things to gain by looking at different scenarios like "we know it can/can't be this outcome because if it did work in this way, this conflicting thing would happen."

Like for instance, we know both frames of reference of the twins are respectively correct because if they weren't and one could instantly teleport back, we'd see...

Or, "we would know only one aged less because of one teleported back we'd see..."

Or, "even if one did teleport back, we wouldn't see..."

Or maybe, "we could theoretically confirm changes in time and not just some illusion of shifts in the frequency of events if someone teleported back from being near a black hole..."

Let's consider this too: We observe light from galaxies that are millions of years old, but just because the light look time to get to us doesn't mean those galaxies only experienced that much aging. From our current models, the inertial frames of any other distant galaxy must have aged along with the ones around us no matter how long it took the light to reach us because they must have been counting time at the same rate, assuming that we're neglecting objects like black holes and treating galaxies as solid objects that have the same mass as our own galaxy. The only thing we don't know is if something happened in between that changed the frame of reference to being in an accelerated frame. But, assuming galaxies continue along their path, if we spontaneously teleported to one, we find that it did actually age 13 billion years as our galaxy did.