Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

well, i've heard about that too but still not sure if its true or not, they found out that lasers which are amplified photons move faster the the normal speed of light, but i dont belive it, and that theory about an astronaut getting to a place before even leaving (relvative to light) is true its like when the sun goes up it takes 7-8 minutes till the light reaches earth cuz of the distance but in this case it gets to us faster than expected.

At 8/17/07 09:00 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 8/17/07 07:00 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Technically, it's faster than instantaneous, or so the article claims.

And the article, along with the paper is wrong.

Oh, totally. As long as something is bound by time, it has to maintain a linear progression.

No, I've actually heard about this a while back. I recall discussing it with some people I go to class with. It's an enormous step, but the problem is that photons are massless particles, the rules are slightly different.

No, the rules are the same, there just pushed to the breaking point, beyond which nothing is likely to exist.

Okay, the rules are the same, granted, but for all intents and purposes, there are things you can do with matter of negligible mass you can't do otherwise. For example, an object of great mass still is bound by the DeBroglie Wave Theory, but don't tell me you're going to use that to calculate movement on stellar bodies, it's simply not applicable.

Teleportation is easier when there's no mass involved.

Hun? I assume you mean rest mass, and if so this statement isn't true.

Granted, however, again, there is an infinitesimal amount of mass. It's just easier to say massless and it's not like this is a scientific publication, simplification is more sensible on the BBS. It's like telling 1st graders that atoms are the smallest unit of matter.

Quantum tunneling is a fantastic theory, nonetheless, and we all agreed that it's the next logical step in deep space travel.

No, it isn't. The next logical step in space travel is ether ion drives for interstellar travel or continued use of conventional rockets for interstellar.

Ion drives, I'll agree with that, but conventional rockets? That's just ridiculous. We need to find ways of breaking our current knowledge of physics if we're going to really explore space. Conventional rockets are too slow and too inefficient. And I'm not really all that up-to-date on quantum tunneling, but I do know that the principle of questioning what we know about physics and going out on a limb is the only way we're going to develop a means of deep-space travel.

I don't get it.

I`d put myself into a "teleport" camera with two destination ports. Two "me`s" would come out.

Then I would do the same a couple hundred times, finally, I would create my own personal "my" army, and then I would kill them all in really funny ways.

=D

At 8/17/07 09:12 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/17/07 09:00 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 8/17/07 07:00 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Teleportation is easier when there's no mass involved.

Hun? I assume you mean rest mass, and if so this statement isn't true.

Granted, however, again, there is an infinitesimal amount of mass. It's just easier to say massless and it's not like this is a scientific publication, simplification is more sensible on the BBS. It's like telling 1st graders that atoms are the smallest unit of matter.

Well, yes, but what I meant was teleportaion isn't necessarily easier if an objects rest mass is less. What matter's the object's total energy or total mass. For instance it's much easier to transmit (at lest in theory) a neutrino, then a gamma ray. They way you had it written could lead one to believe other wise.

Quantum tunneling is a fantastic theory, nonetheless, and we all agreed that it's the next logical step in deep space travel.

No, it isn't. The next logical step in space travel is ether ion drives for interstellar travel or continued use of conventional rockets for interstellar.

Ion drives, I'll agree with that, but conventional rockets? That's just ridiculous.

First let me correct a typo, I meant to say intrastellar (i.e. with in our own star sytem). Ion propulsion systems are nice and workable ideas for ether light craft or interstellar one's but not for in system. There very expensive, and don't allow for the kind of maneuvering that conventional have. So you couldn't easily use gravitational assisted maneuvers with ion drives due to the low amount of force they produce.

We need to find ways of breaking our current knowledge of physics if we're going to really explore space.

While I agree, the question has to be asked what if we simply can't?

Conventional rockets are too slow and too inefficient.

For very long voyages yes, but for intrastellar travel, no.

And I'm not really all that up-to-date on quantum tunneling, but I do know that the principle of questioning what we know about physics and going out on a limb is the only way we're going to develop a means of deep-space travel.

Your right, questioning is always a good thing. So you've effectively asked a question here (though you may not have written it), why do I say we can't use quantum tunneling for FTL. First and for most because it isn't FTL. The speed of Quantum tunneling takes place at the average velocity of the particles that are tunneling. This average velocity will never exceed the speed of light, and only in the case of light will it be equal to c. You have the same problem with teleportation, it can't exceed the speed of light. Thought this is much more obvious when you realize to need a physical connection between the two telepads.

And this thread has gotten way too smart for me lol.

At 8/17/07 02:47 AM, da-pope wrote: Scientists Claim To Break The Speed of Light!

If that's true, why hasn't the universe imploded?

At 8/18/07 03:05 PM, mariobro42 wrote:

At 8/17/07 02:47 AM, da-pope wrote: Scientists Claim To Break The Speed of Light!

If that's true, why hasn't the universe imploded?

Because obviously our understanding was wrong.

At 8/17/07 03:36 AM, HTID wrote: Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide variety of bizarre consequences.
For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.

Paradox?

Not really, seeing by the time you were at a certain point, because it takes light longer to show you than your speed, people could only see you traveling at the speed of light.

For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.

Wouldn't I arrive at school before leaving? Wouldn't I go to a shop before leaving? Wouldn't I arrive anywhere before I leave? I mean I cant leave somewhere before arriving.

At 8/18/07 04:46 PM, Dsmano wrote:

For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.

Wouldn't I arrive at school before leaving? Wouldn't I go to a shop before leaving? Wouldn't I arrive anywhere before I leave? I mean I cant leave somewhere before arriving.

I don't think that's what he meant. Most likely he meant he meant you would arrive at your destination before leaving from your point of origin. To use your school example, you would arrive at school before you ever left you house. In effect FTL travel would cause causality to go out the window, and a cause could come after the effect.

One last example, a switch on the wall turns on a light over head. Assuming the switch is the only mechanism to turn on the light, casualty requires the switch must be turned on before the light will turn one, cause precedes effect. Now if the wire being used could move electrons FTL, the light would turn on before I flipped the switch, as the electricity would have moved backward in time, cause proceeds effect, and causality is violated.

At 8/18/07 06:15 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: One last example, a switch on the wall turns on a light over head. Assuming the switch is the only mechanism to turn on the light, casualty requires the switch must be turned on before the light will turn one, cause precedes effect. Now if the wire being used could move electrons FTL, the light would turn on before I flipped the switch, as the electricity would have moved backward in time, cause proceeds effect, and causality is violated.

What?
How does that work?
If you haven't flipped the switch then you haven't initiated the electrons to move through the wire. I mean it doesn't matter how fast they are, you'd still have to tell them to go before they move anywhere.

Also where did people come to the conclusion that the speed of light and time are actually related. Sure, it's been proven that the faster you're moving the slower time goes by but why did we decide that the speed of light is some almighty reference point? It's just one of thousands of constants in our universe.

At 8/18/07 07:28 PM, da-pope wrote:

At 8/18/07 06:15 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: One last example, a switch on the wall turns on a light over head. Assuming the switch is the only mechanism to turn on the light, casualty requires the switch must be turned on before the light will turn one, cause precedes effect. Now if the wire being used could move electrons FTL, the light would turn on before I flipped the switch, as the electricity would have moved backward in time, cause proceeds effect, and causality is violated.

What?
How does that work?

It doesn't. That was one of my points. If something can mover faster then the speed of light then it can, and will violate causality. Inessince, the effect (i.e.. light bulb turning on) of some action (i.e. The flipping of the switch) can come before the action.

If you haven't flipped the switch then you haven't initiated the electrons to move through the wire. I mean it doesn't matter how fast they are, you'd still have to tell them to go before they move anywhere.

Your kind of right, but there's a problem with your reasoning. Since the elections are moving FTL, they are also moving backwards in time, as such they reach the light bulb before you turn it on.

Also where did people come to the conclusion that the speed of light and time are actually related.

Special relativity.

Sure, it's been proven that the faster you're moving the slower time goes by but why did we decide that the speed of light is some almighty reference point? It's just one of thousands of constants in our universe.

Well no it's not. The speed of light (specifically in a vacuum) is a very special constant, it's fundamental to the workings of the world. It has very deep implications in quantum mechanics, for instance, the group velocity of a wave function will never exceed c. You see as the wave "accelerates" (in so much as the terminology of acceleration applies to waves) the crest and troughs of the wave pile up against each other. The closer they come the more spacetime has be distorted. Eventually the wave crest are moving at the fast velocity possible c, at which point spacetime has been completely compresses from 4 dimensions into a one dimensional system.

Basically, c is the absolute fastest velocity in the universe (so far as we know). Every thing we observe and test confirms this. The speed of light is so special, because it is the fundamental speed of causality.

At 8/18/07 08:36 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Basically, c is the absolute fastest velocity in the universe (so far as we know). Every thing we observe and test confirms this. The speed of light is so special, because it is the fundamental speed of causality.

My problem with this is that, yes, c is special and our knowledge of physics revolves around it. The inherent problem is that if something were to exceed it, we'd have no idea. It could be that it's a very special barrier that, when exceeded, fundamentally changes the particle, distorts time, or does any number of things that would render it unidentifiable to our instruments. In order to get a grasp of what could happen, we need to develop a theoretical backing and not accept that there is a universal limit on velocity.

There is still the question of survival anyway. Sure, we can shoot a couple of photons through a void, but how about a human? That's like a vast amount of molecules, exceeding 100^1000^10000 (yes, its an exponent in an exponent, go on sue me). How are we gonna transpose each one with presision. I mean sure, the body may be there, but the brain may still be in transit.

One last thing about FTL travel. Can such a craft withstand the tidal forces of FTL travel, without massive deformation/disintegrating? And is it feasible? I mean I really wanna see this happen (though I probably won't love to see the dawn of it), but it is a formidable fight for scientists.

Well, anything goes. Orville and Wilbur became triumphant against all odds. This may be a similar story.

At 8/18/07 08:44 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/18/07 08:36 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Basically, c is the absolute fastest velocity in the universe (so far as we know). Every thing we observe and test confirms this. The speed of light is so special, because it is the fundamental speed of causality.

My problem with this is that, yes, c is special and our knowledge of physics revolves around it. The inherent problem is that if something were to exceed it, we'd have no idea.

Well, yes and no. The problem is as far as we know, given every thing we observe the universe is comprised of four fundamental forces, Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong, and Weak. Each of these forces move at the speed of light. There's just no way for any thing to move faster, with out some new fifth force coming into play. If there is such a force, then we should be able to detect and observe it. There's reason to assume we couldn't detect something moving faster then c, unless we can't interact with it, at which point there's no reason to seriously consider it as a scientific position as it doesn't meet the qualifications for on. There's a very simple reason why we haven't discovered something moving FTL, it's because it's not possible.

It could be that it's a very special barrier that, when exceeded, fundamentally changes the particle, distorts time, or does any number of things that would render it unidentifiable to our instruments.

Well it's impossible for any thing to cross the light barrier. Please don't try to point to the sound barrier there are similarities, but you're talking about two completely different perspectives. No object that is travailing less then c can travel faster then or even at c, and like wise anything going faster then c would be unable to go at or slower then c.

In order to get a grasp of what could happen, we need to develop a theoretical backing and not accept that there is a universal limit on velocity.

But there is. Special, and general relativity, aren't just some hacks hypothesis, they are very, very well tested theories, and fundamentally integrated into the fabric of ever field of science. There's no way to reconcile, true FTL with our understanding of the universe, and with out some new phenomenon to suggest a problem with our understanding it will likely stay that way. I'm sorry, I know you want FTL, but the universe just wont allow it.

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Anything that comes close to it will turn into energy, just like if an object goes past -273 degrees. Thats what i was taught, thats what i will believe.

Well isn't quantam tunneling not actually going the speed of light but in a way, cheating that system?

At 8/18/07 10:15 PM, da-pope wrote: Well isn't quantam tunneling not actually going the speed of light but in a way, cheating that system?

No, not really. Quantum tunneling is when a particle moves across some energy barrier that is classically for bidden. For instance, say you have some particle with energy in a potential well. If the potential energy of the well is greater then the particle's, classically the partial can not escape. How ever, because of the nature of microscopic systems the particle's energy isn't as well defined as in a classical system, this is where the whole Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes in. After doing a bit of deriving, we find the probability for a particle in the classically forbidden regions is not zero. As such there is a chance that the particle will be in that area, or if the well isn't infinite in energy or size, possibly beyond it.

At 8/17/07 04:42 PM, StarF68 wrote: "Hey man, I gotta get going or I'll be late."
"Late? You're already here!"
"Oh, shit. Am I on drugs?"

Teleportation, here we come! :O

Greatest post ever :-)