Absolute zero and c

[Popcorn Sutton]

Traveling faster than speed of light may not be possible, but it is possible with respect to an observer.

 

Imagine freezing yourself in a bubble of absolute zero. For you, no time passes. So wrt to observation and the speed of light, it takes the light about 8 minutes to get here when it could only take you 1 second. That is technically traveling faster than the speed of light.

 

Duh, right?

 

This, combined with statistics, makes time travel possible.

And teleportation if you can preserve yourself during the process.

 

Here's a new law for u guys-

Nothing can travel faster than t while t = 0(o).

 

t = time with respect to the observer. In this case it equals 0 occurrences (0(o))

Omg I'm laughing so hard right now!

 

"Nothing" travels faster than the speed of light.

 

Lawrence Krauss would be proud lol

Edited January 5, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[swansont]

Traveling faster than speed of light may not be possible, but it is possible with respect to an observer.

 

Imagine freezing yourself in a bubble of absolute zero. For you, no time passes. So wrt to observation and the speed of light, it takes the light about 8 minutes to get here when it could only take you 1 second. That is technically traveling faster than the speed of light.

 

Duh, right?

 

This, combined with statistics, makes time travel possible.

And teleportation if you can preserve yourself during the process.

 

Here's a new law for u guys-

Nothing can travel faster than t while t = 0(o).

 

t = time with respect to the observer. In this case it equals 0 occurrences (0(o))

Omg I'm laughing so hard right now!

 

"Nothing" travels faster than the speed of light.

 

Lawrence Krauss would be proud lol

It's not possible to get anything to absolute zero, and there's no indication that time would stop even if it were possible.

[Popcorn Sutton]

There's no reason it shouldn't though. Entropy comes to an absolute halt. If things are absolutely frozen to absolute zero, there would be no movement or friction in the object at all.

[swansont]

There's no reason it shouldn't though. Entropy comes to an absolute halt. If things are absolutely frozen to absolute zero, there would be no movement or friction in the object at all.

There's no reason it should. The best atomic clocks work better as the atoms get colder. If one could cool the atoms in them to absolute zero they would work better. But they would still work, i.e. time would still pass, and be measured.

[John Cuthber]

There's no reason it shouldn't though. Entropy comes to an absolute halt. If things are absolutely frozen to absolute zero, there would be no movement or friction in the object at all.

Nope, movement continues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

 

If all movement stopped it would be a breach of the uncertainty principle.

Also, there is no evidence of any change in the rate of passage of time with temperature.

This whole idea is a non-starter.

[Popcorn Sutton]

It still doesn't disprove the law. There is no way you can disprove the law.

 

Nothing is faster than t when t = 0(o)

[swansont]

It still doesn't disprove the law. There is no way you can disprove the law.

 

Nothing is faster than t when t = 0(o)

 

That's not how it works. There's no evidence to support your "law", and no theoretical model to support it, either. It's just you making a bald assertion.

[John Cuthber]

It still doesn't disprove the law. There is no way you can disprove the law.

 

Nothing is faster than t when t = 0(o)

Strictly, it doesn't disprove it but it completely discredits it.

You said

"because all movement stops at absolute zero, time stops".

But all movement does not stop.

So your premise is false, so any deductions from it are unsupported.

 

And then there's the issue that no change in the rate of time with temperature has ever been noted.

 

The idea is still a non starter.

Unless you can actually come up with real evidence for it you are just soapboxing.

Edited January 5, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Popcorn Sutton]

It's a philosophical argument and it's ignoring the physics.

 

I'm arguing about the speed of t with respect to the observer and I stated, as many others have stated before, that nothing is faster than c. Because of this, I've found a loophole. You guys consistently tell the newbies here that nothing travels faster than c and that no information can travel faster than c. Ok, I'll let that stick for the moment. But, because of quantum entanglement, which hasn't been explained for over 100 years now and still stands as a kind of chestnut of inquiry, it's just that little counter intuitive thing that people accept about physics, I think that it finally has an explanation.

 

Nothing travels faster than c is the explanation.

 

Treat nothing as if it were something and you solve the conundrum. So....

 

Nothing, literally, travels faster than c.

 

In other words-

 

"Nothing" travels faster than c.

 

As stated in my law-

 

Nothing travels faster than t while t = 0(o)

 

So, therefor, something travels faster than c and we just haven't found out what yet (until maybe now) because of quantum entanglement.

 

Well, we can say it like this.

 

Something travels faster than c.

 

Because of quantum entanglement, we know that 1(o) travels faster than c. So, therefor, nothing travels faster than 0(o).

 

One can put a spin on it and say "what about -13(o)", hence, trying to say that there is something that exists that actually occurs in the negatives.

 

I don't buy it. I think that all time exists now and that time is experience itself. When we measure light coming from the sun, we see that it takes approximately 8 minutes to get here. However, if we freeze ourselves in time and then send ourselves to the sun, we can literally be there in less than a second. Hence-

 

Nothing travels faster than c.

No occurrence travels faster than c.

It is not possible to travel faster than no occurrence (nothing).

It's not possible to travel faster than t while t = 0(o).

 

Hence, solving the quantum entanglement problem by assuming that our universe has a mind.

 

Time, itself, simultaneously travels faster than c as well as slower.

 

You can travel faster than c as long as nothing happens. (Or, if o < c)

Edited January 6, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[Strange]

 

I'm arguing about the speed of t with respect to the observer

 

What does "speed of t" mean? Speed is distance / time so how can t (time?) have a speed.

 

However, all observers will perceive their time passing the same rate ("1 second per second" if you must). This is their "proper time".

 

 

But, because of quantum entanglement, which hasn't been explained for over 100 years now

 

It has been explained perfectly well. It is just, like many things, counter intuitive.

 

 

"Nothing" travels faster than c.

...

So, therefor, something travels faster than c

 

Wordplay is not science.

 

 

Because of quantum entanglement, we know that 1(o) travels faster than c. So, therefor, nothing travels faster than 0(o).

 

What do "1(o)" and "0(o)" mean?

[Popcorn Sutton]

o means occurrence. I'm using the statistical mechanics framework here.

[ajb]

"Nothing" travels faster than c.

 

Something travels faster than c.

We do have effects of apparant faster than light speed, such as angular effects or the expansion of space-time. The laser dot on the Moon is a good example. The dot can travel faster than the speed of light, but none of the actual photons do.

 

Anyway, a better statment is that we cannot transmit information faster than the speed of light. This rules out quantum entanglement as a FTL communication system, for example.

 

Time, itself, simultaneously travels faster than c as well as slower.

How are you defining time?

 

You can travel faster than c as long as nothing happens. (Or, if o < c)

With respect to what?

 

Within the framework of special relativity no inertial observer can measure a relativistic velocity of some other inertial observer greater or equal to c. Mathematically this is tied in to the Poincare transformations.

[Popcorn Sutton]

We do have effects of apparant faster than light speed, such as angular effects or the expansion of space-time. The laser dot on the Moon is a good example. The dot can travel faster than the speed of light, but none of the actual photons do.

 

Anyway, a better statment is that we cannot transmit information faster than the speed of light. This rules out quantum entanglement as a FTL communication system, for example..

 

What do you mean with the laser dot example?

 

I don't think it rules out quantum entanglement as an FTL system. Imagine that you want to send a message to another planet that is light years away and want to get a response in less than a second. What you can do is send them the message, freeze yourself in time so as to not let anything happen within your experience, and when the response is estimated to arrive, unfreeze yourself and look at your phone and it will say "new message". This would happen in less than a second, whereas it would've taken years for the message to be transmitted and responded to if you only relied on the speed of light. The point here is that you're not only relying on the speed of light to transmit the information, you're also using the speed of time to make sure you get your response in less than a second.

 

 

How are you defining time?

 

I'm defining time as a 1 to 1 correlation with experience. The argument is that without experience, there would be no time. If you can't experience things as they happen, then per QM they are not happening. I'd argue that from a statistical point of view with respect to acquisition, if nothing happens, then nothing is faster than the speed of light. Imagine being in new York city, blinking, but when you open your eyes your in Seattle. Nothing happened, but now your miles away from where you started. That means that you traveled faster than c because light could have taken 2 minutes to get there while it only took you a half a second.

 

 

With respect to what?

 

Within the framework of special relativity no inertial observer can measure a relativistic velocity of some other inertial observer greater or equal to c. Mathematically this is tied in to the Poincare transformations.

 

This is not the framework of special relativity, this is statistical mechanics. In SM, acquisition is built in to the theory itself. You cannot have SM without acquisition. You need to have priors before you can make a prediction. In order to get the priors, you need acquisition (pattern recognition, learning). So, per SM, you can very literally travel faster than c as long as you are the one doing it.

Ok, here's a thought experiment.

 

Assume that there are many worlds and an infinite number or copies of our own world including past, present, and future copies all existing simultaneously somewhere within this universe. Imagine that one particle is an observer, and it has a copy of itself IN THE FUTURE that is approximately 10^30288 light years away. When that particle observes its surroundings at that point in time, it never observes quite the same thing until it observes itself exactly in that point in time again, but the observation just happens to be 10^30288 light years away the next time it observes that same moment.

 

If nothing happened between those two moments, or even if 10^24927 things happened between those moments, it's as if nothing happened because you remember exactly what happened at the starting point, and hence, it's as if nothing happened. It's like a quantum Deja Vu.

Maybe there's a better way of explaining that thought experiment but the law still holds.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[swansont]

It's a philosophical argument and it's ignoring the physics.

 

 

 

Then restrict yourself to philosophy. As it stands, you are making a physics argument and ignoring physics. It's a bad combination.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Well, it is a physics argument because it involves statistical mechanics, but the point is that as long as nothing happens, then you're traveling faster than c. In this sense, you're technically traveling faster than c right now.

[swansont]

Well, it is a physics argument because it involves statistical mechanics, but the point is that as long as nothing happens, then you're traveling faster than c. In this sense, you're technically traveling faster than c right now.

 

Not unless you horribly mangle the terminology and the science.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm sorry I'm just admiring the irony of the argument.

 

We were right all along.

[ajb]

What do you mean with the laser dot example?

see here for example http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae497.cfm

 

 

I don't think it rules out quantum entanglement as an FTL system.

Quantum entanglement has just the right amount of noise to make sending information impossible.

 

 

...freeze yourself in time so as to not let anything happen within your experience...

But how would you do that?

 

I'm defining time as a 1 to 1 correlation with experience. The argument is that without experience, there would be no time.

How does that relate to the definitions used in physics?

 

half a second.

This is not the framework of special relativity, this is statistical mechanics.

Okay, but we still need the mechanics part which requires some structure such as that of special relativity or Newtonian mechanics.

 

So, per SM, you can very literally travel faster than c as long as you are the one doing it.

This I don't understand.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Quantum entanglement has just the right amount of noise to make sending information impossible.

 

1)But how would you do that?

 

 

2)How does that relate to the definitions used in physics?

 

 

3)Okay, but we still need the mechanics part which requires some structure such as that of special relativity or Newtonian mechanics.

 

 

4)This I don't understand.

 

Well, first let me address the quantum entanglement noise thing. There may be noise involved in the process which prevents the transfer of information in a classical sense, but, in a statistical sense, information can be transferred in the sense that if you know that the only options are heads and tails, the particle you measure comes up heads and the information you know now is that there is a 100% chance that the other particle is tails. It's not the type of information we want to transfer, but I guess there should be a way just by using statistics. Maybe I can elaborate on this point but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to have to let this idea sit for a little while. I submit to a computational theory of the mind and have a very elaborate set of code that I use just for the purpose of acquiring language. It may be relevant because there was a part in the code that I had to describe very literally (just by using logic and mathematics) quantum entanglement. It was a necessary component for grammatical output. The strange part is that there is a list that is necessary for it to work, you need to have, what I call, emerging units. It's a bunch of sequences of occurrences that arise, but it happens so quickly that there's no way for articulators to be involved. There's no way of getting around having the list of emerging units, so this may be relevant to the transfer of information, but we just can't measure it happening physically (yet).

 

The question I asked to get to that point is "what does it take to make a computer able to learn any language?" I asked that question about 9 years ago, and I'm pretty confident that I have finally put that question to rest. Like I said above though, I think that it's going to take some time before I can explain how we can transfer information over entanglement, but I'm relatively certain that, if it can happen, statistics will help. I do think that Bayes theorem can help us reduce the noise (it has done very well with speech recognition technology).

 

Before you read this next part, I need to warn you that I haven't made any conclusion. It's not necessary to read, but I'm posting it anyway because some people might find it an interesting train of thought.

 

1) As they have noted above, even at absolute zero, there is still motion (which means that something is happening). I'm not completely convinced of this argument because I think that it's still theoretical, unless someone has demonstrated otherwise (but I doubt it). If there is a process that can help us achieve this, I would call it a flash freeze. I've been hesitant to say this on the forums, but it's been lingering in my mind for some time now so I guess I'll come out with it. After a strong enough explosion, you'll notice that the dirt or sand at the center of the explosion has turned to glass. Although the explosion is actually very hot, I guess you could call this process a "flash freeze" because the sand is now a shard of glass. Unfortunately, I don't think that an explosion will suffice for the preservation of the body. What we want is the exact opposite of disintegration. I'd suggest creating a bubble around the body that will absolutely prevent anything from occurring within the bubble. Sounds simple enough right? Why not just make a big ball of extremely powerful steel that can roll from one point to another. The problem is thermodynamics here. This is why I suggested an absolute freeze. To me, it seems that absolute zero would freeze even the Higg's field, and because of this, it would suffice. My speculation is that the reason that quantum entanglement is possible is because the Higg's field itself is frozen and it's in a solid state, as well as the matter surrounding it. So, even if the particles we observe to be entangled are only a foot apart, the Higg's field that was contained within one of those particles could have literally traveled 10^20^118 light years to get to the same point in time, just in a different location, and it could've done it (from the particles point of view) in literally an instant. So as I suggested above, it's like a quantum deja vu. The problem here is that we need to magnify the frozen Higg's field so that it can solidify the matter surrounding it as well. How can we do that? Well, I would suggest using a vacuum, but the problem is that we do not want to separate the matter from the point of interest, and in this case, the point of interest is the exact center of every bit of matter contained within the body. We just want to magnify the Higg's field. Well, one way we can do that is by literally pushing the matter towards the center while it wants to expand. For that, we would need the repulsive force. We need quantum gravity.

 

Ok this is highly speculative, and I'm afraid that I'm using too many labels here that are not fully understood, so this as well will have to sit for some time in my mind because there's obviously no known mechanism at this moment which can achieve this task so I, myself, or with the help of others, will need to contemplate this idea to find a way of making it plausible.

 

2) I've thought that the word "time" itself is phlogiston for a while now. I call "time" prompting because of my background in computational neuroscience, and I consider it to be a quantum event. The part of the equation for prompting is this. m = P(u|t) This says that the mind is equal to the most probable sequence of occurrences given its location in "time" with respect to other units which are contained within knowledge. The part of the equation that defines time is this- t = y(u). "Time" is equal to any positive number (including 0) of units. The problem here is that you can't just take a unit and throw it anywhere, time has to be precisely organized or else you won't have the proper order in the output (it won't be grammatical). This is how I define a unit, it's a linear bounded object. u = y(o). A unit is equal to any positive whole number of occurrences including 0 occurrences. This much is how statistical mechanics works. The law that I've proposed is that nothing is faster than t while t = 0(o). It can also be said as, nothing is faster than t while t = 0(u). This suggests that, with respect to an observer, if the observer is the Higg's field itself, or if the observer is "nothing", then it's literally the fastest thing in the universe and it can travel from opposite ends of our universe instantly, it can even travel to our universe from another universe instantly. It can come from the past, the future, or the present in literally no time at all. So the problem here is that with our bodies, we are made up of 7*10^27 units at least. These units are not only subatomic, but they go all the way from the very small to the very large where the entire body itself is 1 unit and everything less than the body is 1 unit as well. We have to preserve the order itself. So if t = 7*10^27(u) (at least) at any given moment, then we are going to be very slow in relation to something else where t = 1(u).

 

Ok, that being said, imagine if we eliminate all units and just leave one, the most maximal unit, which may be the body and its surrounding environment. So, if we completely ignore the liver and the spleen and all the atoms within the body and surrounding the body and treat it all as one unit, then t = 1(u), and it should be able to travel very fast. The math is there, but we just need to reduce the occurrences.

 

3) I know we need the mechanics, but as I said before, I'm going to need to let this one sit for a little while before I can come up with an answer. I'm sure it's out there, because it is possible in the math, but I just need to find an example, one that hopefully doesn't involve surrounding a body with a black hole.

 

4) SM means Statistical Mechanics, not the Standard Model. What I mean is that you can go from earth to doppelgänger earth in less than a second and travel literally 10^20^118 light years away as long as you have a craft that can navigate for you and you a frozen in time within the craft. You can go shake your own hand in less than a second if we were able to do this mechanically. In a technical sense, that means that you're travelling faster than the speed of light because it would take light 10^20^118 years to get from earth to doppelganger earth, but from your point of view, it only took less than a second. Hence, you traveled MUCH MUCH faster than light (from your point of view).

[swansont]

When you measure a state of an entangled pair, there is no information transfer. The measurement simply tells you the state of both particles, as they were both described by the same wave function.

 

The rest of it falls into the category of "not even wrong"

[Popcorn Sutton]

The rest of it falls into the category of "not even wrong"

 

Wow Swansont, I'm truly honored to hear you say that.

I have a question relevant to this discussion then.

 

If you have a vacuum, and you try to heat it up or freeze it, does it change the temperature in the vacuum? If so, how fast does the temperature change?

I looked at this, but I'm still a little confused about it.

[swansont]

A vacuum, strictly speaking, doesn't have a temperature. When people talk about the temperature of space they're discussing the microwave background radiation one finds in space, and the fact that it has a thermal distribution of something with a temperature of ~2.7 K.

[Klaynos]

Just so we're clear, not even wrong is not a good thing, it means something is so flawed it's difficult to start explaining why it's incorrect.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I disregard your comment Klaynos. I don't expect that it was sarcasm (although it could've been). If you want to try and explain why it's wrong I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

I have a question though. What do you guys think of this as a possible explanation for quantum entanglement?

 

I also have an idea of how to transmit information via entanglement. What you do is you get a box, you suspend some particles in superposition in the box, then, just like a magician, you cut the box in half. You take one of the boxes wherever you want to transmit the information to, then you talk to one of the boxes and you should be able to hear the particles vibrate at the other end. If there's too much noise, use Bayes to reduce it.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[swansont]

I disregard your comment Klaynos. I don't expect that it was sarcasm (although it could've been). If you want to try and explain why it's wrong I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

I have a question though. What do you guys think of this as a possible explanation for quantum entanglement?

 

I also have an idea of how to transmit information via entanglement. What you do is you get a box, you suspend some particles in superposition in the box, then, just like a magician, you cut the box in half. You take one of the boxes wherever you want to transmit the information to, then you talk to one of the boxes and you should be able to hear the particles vibrate at the other end. If there's too much noise, use Bayes to reduce it.

 

Entanglement does not work that way. You don't "talk" to one of the particles, and the corresponding particle does not "vibrate". The particles are in an undetermined state. You measure one and you know the state of both. An observer at the other end of the experiment doesn't know what state the particle is in until it's measured. That's it. Anything else you do to one particle will not affect the other, since the measurement breaks the entanglement.