ieatcrayonz Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Light travels slower in any medium more dense than a vacuum, which has no density at all. What makes these guys think up stuff like this? In a vacuum? I wonder how many failed experiments took place in blenders, stoves, washers, etc. Does the model of the vacuum change the result and how is this useful anyway? On a side note, does anyone know if Oreck is publicly traded?
eSJayDee Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Physics has known for decades that certain quantum phenomena travel faster than light (instantenously, really, no matter the distance. Take an atom here on earth, link it through some quantum state to an atom around Alpha Centauri, change the quantum state here on earth...it changes the state around Alpha Centauri immediately.) So that's how they manage to communicate in real time over vast distances on Star Trek, etc. And I thought this was another of those Hollywood liberties they took (like the fact that almost all aliens are able to speak English and that you can easily access and understand/decipher their data).
DrDawkinstein Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 anyone else notice that this story is from November 10, 2000?? where's my flying car?!?!
Wacka Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 So that's how they manage to communicate in real time over vast distances on Star Trek, etc. And I thought this was another of those Hollywood liberties they took (like the fact that almost all aliens are able to speak English and that you can easily access and understand/decipher their data). Don't you remember the Universal Translator that's implanted in everyone? In Enterprise, it was still too small to implant. that's why they needed Hoshi.
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Think we'll have a Grand Unified Theory in our lifetime? Maybe. I doubt it, but it's possible. The big problem is that the HST has knocked modern cosmology into a cocked hat, so that there serious holes in even general relativity...which means there's no coherent gravitational theory to combine with the Standard Model. The upside of that is that a new gravitational theory just may allow gravity to be quantized, which has been the biggest stumbling block to a GUT. So when they sort out the wreckage modern cosmology has made of modern physics, they just may accomplish it. I don't see that wreckage being sorted out anytime soon though. Do you think it will ever be possible to push mass faster then light or even at it? The way you phrase it...certainly not. "Push mass" implies imparting a force that accelerates it to a given speed...and as Ramius said, relativity forbids it (specifically, E=mc^2 forbids it. If mass and energy are equivalent, the more energy you impart to something, the more massive you're making it, which means you need progressively more energy to accelerate it.) However...there's actually nothing in physics that directly forbids time travel (meaning travel backwards through time. We're always travelling through time, forwards). No one can figure out how to do it (at least, not practically. If you take rotate a giant cylinder 100 times more massive than the sun and slingshot yourself around it, you cn do it)...but no one can find a reason it shouldn't be possible. So at least theoretically you can send an object with mass from point A to point B, then move it back in time to such a point in time that it basically moves faster than the speed of light (e.g. you take off in a rocket ship from here to Alpha Centauri. At half the speed of light, it takes you 9 years to get there. When you get there, you use your patented Dr. Who Telephone Booth to go back six years...and you've made a trip in three years that would take light four and a half. Volia, you've moved faster than light). The problem with that is it creates all SORTS of violations of other physical "laws". You'd effectively be in two places at once - theoretically, since you reach Alpha Centauri before the light from your departure does, you could watch yourself leave for your trip. And since it is effectively faster-than-light travel, relativity says it's indistinguishable from actual faster-than-light travel, so it shouldn't be possible...except that there's nothing that says tiem travel shouldn't be possible, so it should be possible... It's very paradoxical. Personally, it makes me think what I stated above: there's something missing in gravitational theory (i.e. general relativity).
slothrop Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Maybe. I doubt it, but it's possible. The big problem is that the HST has knocked modern cosmology into a cocked hat, so that there serious holes in even general relativity...which means there's no coherent gravitational theory to combine with the Standard Model. The upside of that is that a new gravitational theory just may allow gravity to be quantized, which has been the biggest stumbling block to a GUT. So when they sort out the wreckage modern cosmology has made of modern physics, they just may accomplish it. I don't see that wreckage being sorted out anytime soon though. The way you phrase it...certainly not. "Push mass" implies imparting a force that accelerates it to a given speed...and as Ramius said, relativity forbids it (specifically, E=mc^2 forbids it. If mass and energy are equivalent, the more energy you impart to something, the more massive you're making it, which means you need progressively more energy to accelerate it.) However...there's actually nothing in physics that directly forbids time travel (meaning travel backwards through time. We're always travelling through time, forwards). No one can figure out how to do it (at least, not practically. If you take rotate a giant cylinder 100 times more massive than the sun and slingshot yourself around it, you cn do it)...but no one can find a reason it shouldn't be possible. So at least theoretically you can send an object with mass from point A to point B, then move it back in time to such a point in time that it basically moves faster than the speed of light (e.g. you take off in a rocket ship from here to Alpha Centauri. At half the speed of light, it takes you 9 years to get there. When you get there, you use your patented Dr. Who Telephone Booth to go back six years...and you've made a trip in three years that would take light four and a half. Volia, you've moved faster than light). The problem with that is it creates all SORTS of violations of other physical "laws". You'd effectively be in two places at once - theoretically, since you reach Alpha Centauri before the light from your departure does, you could watch yourself leave for your trip. And since it is effectively faster-than-light travel, relativity says it's indistinguishable from actual faster-than-light travel, so it shouldn't be possible...except that there's nothing that says tiem travel shouldn't be possible, so it should be possible... It's very paradoxical. Personally, it makes me think what I stated above: there's something missing in gravitational theory (i.e. general relativity). God? is that you?
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 God? is that you? Published physicist. I actually studied this sh--. Hell, I still study it. I've got Weinberg's three-volume text on the quantum theory of fields on back-order. Fifteen posts ago, it was "Nerds make the world go 'round." Now I'm strange. C'est la vie.
Sketch Soland Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Maybe. I doubt it, but it's possible. The big problem is that the HST has knocked modern cosmology into a cocked hat, so that there serious holes in even general relativity...which means there's no coherent gravitational theory to combine with the Standard Model. The upside of that is that a new gravitational theory just may allow gravity to be quantized, which has been the biggest stumbling block to a GUT. So when they sort out the wreckage modern cosmology has made of modern physics, they just may accomplish it. I don't see that wreckage being sorted out anytime soon though. The way you phrase it...certainly not. "Push mass" implies imparting a force that accelerates it to a given speed...and as Ramius said, relativity forbids it (specifically, E=mc^2 forbids it. If mass and energy are equivalent, the more energy you impart to something, the more massive you're making it, which means you need progressively more energy to accelerate it.) However...there's actually nothing in physics that directly forbids time travel (meaning travel backwards through time. We're always travelling through time, forwards). No one can figure out how to do it (at least, not practically. If you take rotate a giant cylinder 100 times more massive than the sun and slingshot yourself around it, you cn do it)...but no one can find a reason it shouldn't be possible. So at least theoretically you can send an object with mass from point A to point B, then move it back in time to such a point in time that it basically moves faster than the speed of light (e.g. you take off in a rocket ship from here to Alpha Centauri. At half the speed of light, it takes you 9 years to get there. When you get there, you use your patented Dr. Who Telephone Booth to go back six years...and you've made a trip in three years that would take light four and a half. Volia, you've moved faster than light). The problem with that is it creates all SORTS of violations of other physical "laws". You'd effectively be in two places at once - theoretically, since you reach Alpha Centauri before the light from your departure does, you could watch yourself leave for your trip. And since it is effectively faster-than-light travel, relativity says it's indistinguishable from actual faster-than-light travel, so it shouldn't be possible...except that there's nothing that says tiem travel shouldn't be possible, so it should be possible... It's very paradoxical. Personally, it makes me think what I stated above: there's something missing in gravitational theory (i.e. general relativity). From what I've read about Superstring Theory, it seems like some physicists like Brian Greene think that it may be the link between quantum and newtonian/general relativity, that it may one day lead to a GUT. I am not a physicist but it is very interesting. What say you about superstring theory?
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 From what I've read about Superstring Theory, it seems like some physicists like Brian Greene think that it may be the link between quantum and newtonian/general relativity, that it may one day lead to a GUT. I am not a physicist but it is very interesting. What say you about superstring theory? Don't know enough about it. My research was statistical physics, my classwork stopped at QCD (i.e. just before string theory). It's one of the reasons I have Weinberg on back-order, as his text goes into it. But my observations about the hash that's been made of cosmology still hold. There's stuff they're discovering ("dark energy", kind of a large-scale anti-gravity, for example) that hasn't been accounted for in ANY theory. The whole point of a GUT is to develop a theory that combines the large scale description of the universe (general relativity) with the small-scale description (quantum physics). They haven't yet done it for relativity...and right now, relativity isn't even describing observation. When they fix THAT little problem, superstring theory may or may not lead to a unified theory. It certainly won't in the near future, with all the "What the hell?" observations they've made.
slothrop Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Published physicist. I actually studied this sh--. Hell, I still study it. I've got Weinberg's three-volume text on the quantum theory of fields on back-order. Fifteen posts ago, it was "Nerds make the world go 'round." Now I'm strange. C'est la vie. Sooooooo, you're not god?
Helmet_hair Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Ok, here’s a Star trek influenced question. Envision time/space as a fabric stretched out flat with two points on that fabric A and B with a distance of 1 light year between them. If you were to wrinkle or warp that same fabric in such a way that the crests from points A and B infinitely approach each other but do not touch, it takes a fraction of the light year. What would this be considered, Time travel, Faster then light travel, or something else?
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Ok, here’s a Star trek influenced question. Envision time/space as a fabric stretched out flat with two points on that fabric A and B with a distance of 1 light year between them. If you were to wrinkle or warp that same fabric in such a way that the crests from points A and B infinitely approach each other but do not touch, it takes a fraction of the light year. What would this be considered, Time travel, Faster then light travel, or something else? Travel through an alternate dimension, since you're jumping from A to B through a dimension outside the normal spacetime dimensions. By way of explanation: take a piece of paper, draw two points on it. The points are separated by a certain distance on the paper. Now fold the paper - bend it into a U-shape. The two points are no closer on the surface of the paper...but through a third dimension outside the surface of the paper, they're much closer. Add a dimension, and that's the science fiction "space warp" - folding a three-dimensional sheet through another dimension so points on the sheet are closer together through the dimension the sheet's folded in. The problem is: you have to find some way of leaving the constraint of your space-time "sheet". We're constrained to three (technically four) dimensions. Good luck entering another. As to whether or not it's time or faster-than-light travel...relativity says there's no difference. Time travel IS faster-than-light travel. According to relativity, going from here to Alpha Centauri in two years (light takes four and a half) is indistinguishable from going there in eight years and going back in time six years after you get there.
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Sooooooo, you're not god? Oh...okay, if you insist. But my church insists on a 10% tithe. Cash or certified check. I'll get you a mailing address.
ieatcrayonz Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 probably not, because the theory of relativity states that mass becomes infinitely large when the spped of light is approached. So approaching the speed of light, even someone like Karen Carpenter would be Orwellian?
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 So approaching the speed of light, even someone like Karen Carpenter would be Orwellian? I KNEW you'd come in with an "Orwellian" reference.
yall Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 So approaching the speed of light, even someone like Karen Carpenter would be Orwellian? Did you mean Orson Wells? Or maybe Momma Cass....
Helmet_hair Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 So, that’s what they mean when they talk about dimensional space travel. Would it be possible to rip a hole in the fabric or paper just below the crest of point A and insert The crest of point B into our plane or dimension?
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 So, that’s what they mean when they talk about dimensional space travel. Would it be possible to rip a hole in the fabric or paper just below the crest of point A and insert The crest of point B into our plan or dimension? Maybe. I don't know. You've now exceeded my knowledge and understanding of multi-dimensional topology. Yes, I know some of you are shocked to find out, but there are identifiable limits to my knowledge. I'm not omniscient...I just seem like it when compared to idiots like DeLuca or Holcomb's Arm...
slothrop Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 So, that’s what they mean when they talk about dimensional space travel. Would it be possible to rip a hole in the fabric or paper just below the crest of point A and insert The crest of point B into our plane or dimension? And what's it called when the paper that represents space-time is folded into a paper football and "flicked" through a wormhole?
ieatcrayonz Posted March 7, 2007 Posted March 7, 2007 Did you mean Orson Wells? Or maybe Momma Cass.... Yes. "Orwellian" is slang for a fat person. It comes from people that made fun of Orson Wells. It really isn't much of an abbreviation as it uses almost all the letters. I think that is by designed because it is a long, "fat" word. Personally, I thin Mamacassian would be funnier but I have never seen it used.
Recommended Posts