Is faster than light travel possible?

File: 75 KB, 466x700, tumblr_mj0gv8hMC41qaj4qio1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:12:12 2013 No.5582369 [Reply] [Original]

Is faster than light travel possible?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:14:40 2013 No.5582370 Depends on your frame of reference, but generally no. It's possible to go from point a to b ftl, but if you're just going from velocity, I dont think so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:14:54 2013 No.5582371 yes, look up "quantum entanglement"

>>	sage Mon Mar 4 13:17:24 2013 No.5582378 File: 28 KB, 320x265, full retard no caption.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5582371 >faster than light TRAVEL >quantum entanglement

Smarter Mon Mar 4 13:21:09 2013 No.5582394

Yes. What idiots like you generally don't know, is that special relativity does allow for FTL travel. What is does NOT allow, is something breaking the speed of light barrier. In other words, something can travel FTL if it has always been travelling FTL, and it will never stop travelling FTL. These things are called tachyons (hypothetical of course). The have some cool properties; like an imaginary mass, and they increase their speed as they lose energy.

>Also, for future questions, LEARN TO USE GOOGLE, FUCKTARD. QUESTIONS LIKE THIS ONE HAVE BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED A BILLION TIMES.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:22:55 2013 No.5582397 >>5582369 No, but you could simply warp space around your ship in order to go at a superliminal speed from an outside observer while still not technically breaking the speed limit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:24:09 2013 No.5582401 >>5582378 Quantum entanglement allows us to transmit information faster than light. Once we have teleporters, our mass can be translated into information and FTL travel is possible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:24:40 2013 No.5582400 >>5582394 you're a fucken retard too. op, look up superluminal motion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:26:09 2013 No.5582404 >>5582369 Nor in the next 100 years OP. In your lifetime, no..It isn't and won't be.

>>	Smarter Mon Mar 4 13:26:25 2013 No.5582405 >>5582400 How am I a retard, faggot? You can't even spell 'fucking'. What I said is 100% true mathematically, you don't KNOW SHIT.

>>	Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o Mon Mar 4 13:27:24 2013 No.5582409 >>5582400 Do not call other posters 'retards'. "Most [astrophysicists] believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible with the theory of special relativity."

Smarter Mon Mar 4 13:28:24 2013 No.5582412

>>5582401
IT DOES NOT. Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with INFORMATION being transferred FTL. Here's a really good link for pseudoscientific faggots who always want to think 'fisiks iz soo coolz!!' without knowing shit:
http://physics*stackexchange*com/questions/54975/quantum-entanglement-whats-the-big-deal

I don't know if 4chan will allow this link, we'll see

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:29:40 2013 No.5582414 >>5582405 I can shitpost wherever I want I also didn't read your entire post so fuck you

>>	iniggeredthecaptcha Mon Mar 4 13:30:40 2013 No.5582416 >>5582369 You're not going to get a useful response.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:31:25 2013 No.5582418 >>5582412 Yeah, but if Schrodinger's cat was entangled with a particle outside the box, we'd know whether the cat is dead or alive without opening the box. mind = blown

>>	iniggeredthecaptcha Mon Mar 4 13:32:24 2013 No.5582420 >>5582394 >condescends >>5582405 >doesn't like being condescended to

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:32:55 2013 No.5582422 >>5582409 wot about casimir light, or did they take that out of the wikipedia article

>>	Smarter Mon Mar 4 13:33:26 2013 No.5582423 >>5582418 Wait, what? If Schrodinger's cat was entangled with a particle outside the box? So a particle can have a state of being dead or alive? Wtf is wrong with you guys, seriously. >follow the link, it explains what you need to know

>>	Smarter Mon Mar 4 13:34:25 2013 No.5582432 >>5582420 Because I actually made valid points, and I actually answered a stupid question, and was called a retard by someone who apparently didn't even read the whole post (which was like 3 sentences long). Logic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:36:11 2013 No.5582435 >>5582405 >What I said is 100% true mathematically Except OP didn't ask for mathematical facts, he asked if it were possible. So you're a retard for not knowing how to answer a question properly.

Smarter Mon Mar 4 13:40:25 2013 No.5582448

>>5582435

>I meant physically. It obeys the laws of special relativity. Faggot. IT IS FUCKING POSSIBLE FOR FUCKS SAKE FUCKING FUCK WHERE ARE THE REAL PHYSICISTS THIS BOARD IS FILLED WITH ENGINEERS AND STUPID 13 YEAR OLD FUCKS. I answered it properly, fucking piece of shit faggot.

>look up tachyons
>see for yourself
>fuck yourself

I'm out of this board. Never visiting again, one less physicist for you faggots.

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:40:39 2013 No.5582452

Yes, just plain yes.
Light speed is not any sort of 'speed limit,' it's just that
light, radio waves, radar waves, microwaves and all sorts of energy are similar in their speed of motion, the all can refract, they all can reflect so expect stuff to got that speed.
Go faster and you would just cause a little photonic flash corollary to a sonic boom.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:42:25 2013 No.5582459 >>5582448 >implying you can turn into a tachyon which may or may not even exist hurpadurpadurpadurpa i hope you at least manage to finish your BSc.

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:44:25 2013 No.5582467

On a side note OP, FTL travel is not necessary at all for humans to achieve interstellar travel (I guess that was the reason of your question).
Due to time dilatation when objects travel at velocities close (but not superior or equal) to c, a trip that would last 100 years from Earth's viewpoint, would only last 10 years for the people inside the spaceship.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:46:40 2013 No.5582477 >>5582369 No matter how much you increase your velocity, it will always be less than your energy if you have mass.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:46:54 2013 No.5582479 >>5582448 >He thinks possible means being compatible with a scientific theory. You're not really a physicist, are you ?

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:48:25 2013 No.5582486 [DELETED]

>>5582467

yes but that kinda sucks if you want to maintain interstellar relations.

A: "yo you originally came from earth, how's bill?"
B: "good, saw him before I came here, just started a new mining company."
C: "what the fuck are you smoking, bill died 5000 years ago in the zerg invasion"

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:54:25 2013 No.5582508 >>5582486 Yep, it's a one way ticket.

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:55:54 2013 No.5582510

>>5582452

Light speed is a speed limit.

All of what you just said are electromagnetic waves wich propagate at c..

Information can not travel faster than c. There are various non-informational processes that travel faster than c.

Simple as this OP. If you can travel faster than light, you can break causality. Electromagnetic waves, thermal radiation, all propagate at c. If you can travel faster than these processes, which essentially make up causality, then you break it, in one reference frame or another.

All these plebs talking about tachyons and alcubierre drives. lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 13:56:25 2013 No.5582511 >>5582508 so instead of FTL it might be more economical to work on proper long term cryostasis because in the end it's irrelevant how you do it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:01:09 2013 No.5582530 >>5582369 Yes and no, if your somehow able to bend or warp space then you will effectively travel faster than light without actually doing so. Otherwise no, its not possible sorry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:01:40 2013 No.5582529 >>5582510 Name one informational process that travels faster than c.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:02:55 2013 No.5582533 >>5582529 Non-informational* In fact, name one non informational signal or process at all

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:05:54 2013 No.5582544 >>5582511 Well no. FTL is a lot better than cryostasis and relativistic spaceships. However it is true that cryostasis seems more reasonable than relativistic spaceships, let alone FTL.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:08:10 2013 No.5582552 >>5582533 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#section_1 Maybe you should learn to Google.

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:10:28 2013 No.5582556

>>5582530

Even if you bent space around a physical object as a bubble, and used that spacetime "wave" to travel faster than light, you do not simply remove the problems inherent in ftl travel, such as causality. It only removes the physical limitations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:11:39 2013 No.5582560 Yes. The big bang expanded faster than the speed of light, and literally "Nothing" travels faster than the speed of light. http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels-faster-than-the-speed-of-light

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:13:40 2013 No.5582564

Definitely. We can do it via special relativity or by quantum mechanics.

Using relativity, 2 objects move away from each other at lightspeed. From one object's measurement they are moving faster than light. This is the reason why the universe is so expansive and stretches more than light could travel.

QM suggests we can cheat, speed of light limit only applies to objects in objects going on normal space, but not the space itself. If we can shift space around, then we can travel faster than light. This is also the basis for Alcubierre warp drive theory.

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:17:26 2013 No.5582572

>>5582564

Both your examples do not permit faster than light travel.

2 objects moving away from each other are not moving away faster than light.

Spacetime expansion results in 2 points becoming farther apart with respect to time. Spacial expansion doesn't carry anything away at ftl speeds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:17:40 2013 No.5582573 >>5582564 >Using relativity, 2 objects move away from each other at lightspeed. From one object's measurement they are moving faster than light. Nope. They actually both measure slower-than-light speeds for each other.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:18:11 2013 No.5582574 >>5582572 2 objects moving away at lightspeed*, are not moving faster than light.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:18:24 2013 No.5582578 >>5582573 sorry, exact light speed, not slower

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:24:32 2013 No.5582594 >>5582552 Funny how none of those actually travel faster than light. Try again once you've read the page you link.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:29:24 2013 No.5582612 >>5582594 >A laser is swept across a distant object, the spot of laser light can easily be made to move across the object at a speed greater than?c. Did you even read?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:29:54 2013 No.5582615 >>5582612 greater than c**.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:30:25 2013 No.5582621 >>5582564 >confirmed for not knowing what special relativity actually is

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:31:40 2013 No.5582623 >>5582612 The light bends you silly boy, you really don't understand at all do you? The dot will not move faster than C.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:33:01 2013 No.5582629 >>5582623 But it will. The laser light that makes up the dot won't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:35:30 2013 No.5582634 >>5582623 Your an idiot. Maybe you should read about the phenomena before you post. A shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c. No information is traveling faster than c. Why are you arguing faggot?

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:36:45 2013 No.5582637 [DELETED]

>>5582629
but you can't convey any information ftl with that.

but it will indeed appear to travel faster than light.

but what is a dot. it's like saying this circle I have drawn on the pavement is actually a dot of chalk moving infinitely fast in a circle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:38:16 2013 No.5582644 >>5582637 Yes. Did I say something else?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:42:46 2013 No.5582661 >>5582637 No one is saying you can convey information with it.. Like I said before, there are various NON-INFORMATIONAL phenomena that can, or appear to, travel faster than light. Jesus, that dare reading comprehension

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:52:00 2013 No.5582693 Not with current understanding of physics. Neutrinos are capable but they are theoretical anyway, so who knows.

>>	NIGGERS NIGGERS Mon Mar 4 14:55:15 2013 No.5582699 PHOTONS IN CASIMIR VACUUM EXCEED C NIGGGERS

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 14:55:45 2013 No.5582701 >>5582693 Neutrinos aren't theoretical nor capable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:01:17 2013 No.5582719 File: 64 KB, 338x303, 1342226432655.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5582693 >neutrinos are theoretical

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:07:01 2013 No.5582738 >>5582719 Thank you thank you

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:15:00 2013 No.5582769 >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:34:30 2013 No.5582830 >>5582397 how do you warp space?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 15:58:46 2013 No.5582898 >>5582830 Same way a black hole does, inefficiency.

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:02:16 2013 No.5582903

>>5582369
Yes but it depends on bending gravity. This is instanced by the dark matter pits commonly referred to as "Black Holes" in which the "Event Horizon" is the rationalization of this question, anything beyond this is just speculation at this point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:19:00 2013 No.5582941 File: 491 KB, 295x211, 1124443511.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:35:46 2013 No.5582980 >>5582369 No, nothing with mass. I like your pic though

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:41:45 2013 No.5582989 File: 34 KB, 360x507, trolled softly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5582423 He doesn't know that the funny zimbabew man made the Schrodinger's cat an epic maymay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:48:46 2013 No.5583002 >>5582578 would be less than light speed actually you faggots are the same as the girl who posts pictures of space on facebook

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:51:36 2013 No.5583012 >>5583002 nope if in a frame of reference two (massless) objects are moving in opposite directions with velocity exactly c, they see each other move at exactly c

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 16:55:08 2013 No.5583020 >>5583012 Because nothing can travel faster than light. It's nice to say how nature works. And amazing how people managed to make this theories only with their minds and a pencil. Amuricans will pay fo rnot having obligatory philosophy classes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:03:53 2013 No.5583031 >>5582394 Could we build a "solar sail" that gets its "wind" from tachyons?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:05:09 2013 No.5583033 >>5583031 if tachyons existed and a way to interact with them existed, yes

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:07:54 2013 No.5583042

Well so neutrinos have zero electrical charge,
zero mass and are not at a specific location?
I could support the other poster that said they are theoretical.

Didn't the understanding that neutrinos exist arise, from the "perishing electron" crisis? The subatomic physicists could not break the rule that you can never ever have an electron cease so they declared "it must have become a neutrino?" and that proves they exist since how else could the neverdying electron have carried on.

It is a chemist that will never, ever have electrons disappear but in subatomic physics I am not so sure that the chemist's true mantra will always remain true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:10:09 2013 No.5583048 Aren't there Three Nos on neutrinos, am I getting them wrong zero electrical charge I am pretty sure, one is like zero mass or zero gravity or zero momentum and what was the third one, zero credibility.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:11:38 2013 No.5583051 >>5583042 neutrinos don't have zero mass also, conservation laws/symmetries are much more important in physics than in chemistry

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:12:08 2013 No.5583052 >>5583033 You sir just gave me a pet timewaster to theorize on!

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:25:55 2013 No.5583090

More trouble has been initiated from the time an electron scuttled across a grid and died than any other event I can think of in particle physics.
One solution upheld conservation orthodoxy by declaring the electron exited into a parallel universe, which is created in the course of that single exchange.

Maybe we should explore flaunting the conservation laws instead of postulating billions on billions of parallel universes.

Wikipedia said that neutrinos have very small mass even at the tiny scale of subatomic physics which mass has never been measured; years ago I used to hear people say simply that they had no mass but
there is a time not to simplify or approximate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 17:31:54 2013 No.5583112 >>5583090 >an electron scuttled across a grid and died what. is that a repeatable experiement?

Anonymous Mon Mar 4 20:50:24 2013 No.5583726

>>5582510
Special relativity states that causality does not have to be preserved in all frames of reference. (Technically it's "observed as preserved," but since everything has to be observed the distinction's moot.) The laws of SR – as observable phenomena – are only universally true within a given frame of reference. Causality is one of these. As long as there exists a frame of reference in which causality is observed to be preserved, it is preserved in the universe.

To oversimplify, and effect can be observed to happen before the event that caused it is, but the effect can't actually happen before the event.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 21:37:24 2013 No.5583855 >>5583112 I might have read that in "The Goddarned Particle."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 21:44:25 2013 No.5583875 Maybe in Chapter Six

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 4 21:47:09 2013 No.5583886 >>5583090 Most many-worlders don't actually believe in the objective existence of worlds including their own. It's more of a mental disorder than a scientific theory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 09:31:39 2013 No.5584920 >>5583886 Roger, confirm you on that. The department head should have promptly written up a violation citation on that convenient theory.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 10:36:54 2013 No.5585003
File: 302 KB, 880x720, 1336595806304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I don't know if it really is possible or not, but right now every clue seems to say "no".

Quantum entaglement cannot break the speed of light if you want to send information.

It's possible that for example some galaxy if moving from us faster than speed of light, but that's kind of cheating, because it's space between us is growing.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 10:53:25 2013 No.5585024

>>5583726

Quite the opposite actually.

Special relativity states that causality is preserved in all reference frames...

All inertial reference frames must agree..

If there is a frame of reference that an effect precedes a cause then causality is broken.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 10:55:24 2013 No.5585027 >>5585024 Furthermore, if there is a reference frame where an effect precedes a cause, then, through special relativity, one can show that it is possible to send these ftl signals back into ones own past.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 10:56:55 2013 No.5585029

Well, as velocity increases towards the SOL, the object's "mass factor" increases towards infinity. That is, as the velocity approaches light speed, the mass gets multiplied by a value that approaches infinity as well (infinity being the point at which the reletive velocity of light and the object in question is equal to 0).

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 11:24:25 2013 No.5585054 OP, ... nice pic :P

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:01:54 2013 No.5585257 >>5585027 question, doesn't this >>5585003 violate causality under special relativity then? yes, it's space that's expanding, but it's going fast enough and if so, wouldn't the alcubierre drive work then?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:14:10 2013 No.5585275 >>5582467 Regardless of time dilation that helps space travel in no way. Going 10 light years means absolutely shit when it comes to cosmological distances.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:22:40 2013 No.5585284

>>5582552
Light spots and shadows

If a laser is swept across a distant object, the spot of laser light can easily be made to move across the object at a speed greater than c.[7] Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move across the object faster than c.[7] In neither case does the light travel from the source to the object faster than c, nor does any information travel faster than light
How is this not faster than light information transfer?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:24:10 2013 No.5585287 >>5585284 How would you use it to send a message faster than light?

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:29:39 2013 No.5585296
File: 1.82 MB, 200x172, 1358136566353.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5582369
The agitator of light (ie: atomic nucleus) travels at the speed of light times the speed of light (c^2). Therefore the sinusoidal movement is also exactly twice the velocity of a photon.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:29:39 2013 No.5585298

>>5585024
Yeah, you're right; I only have a passing knowledge of SR, so I got my terms confused. But still, SR only holds in areas of 'flat' spacetime, which makes sense as there is no general frame of reference. Warping spacetime allows information to get from A to B faster than light would (faster 'speed'), but it doesn't allow for 'negative speed' (calling it speed isn't completely accurate).

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:47:24 2013 No.5585319

>>5585287
There are two scientists 10 meters apart holding computers with photovoltaic cells. If the laser is on the photovoltaic cell it displays "True" if it is not then it displays false. The laser is on one scientists computer, so that it reads true and the other reads false, then sweeps to the other computer 10 meters away faster than light. This is conveying the signal that the calculator that was originally reading true, is now reading false fast than the speed of light.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:51:26 2013 No.5585324 >>5585296 I've considered this too, is this based on the Landry Prediction?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 13:56:55 2013 No.5585340 >>5585319 this doesn't send any message from one scientist to another though

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 14:00:40 2013 No.5585348 >>5585324 It's the only GUT candidate that is worth using. String<Standard Model<Classical<Einstein<Quantum<Landry Model

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 14:10:09 2013 No.5585379 wormhole

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 17:44:24 2013 No.5585881

>>5585257

Yes, it still violates causality in the case of alcubierre drives. Alcubierre drives are simply a hypothetical means of side stepping the physical limitations when talking about reaching ftl travel. I.e, accelerating something that has mass to lightspeed. It still does not remove the problem of causality, if you can travel from point a to point b faster than a light signal could.

Secondly, >>5585003 is mistaken when he says that galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. This is due to two misconceptions.

1. That spacial expansion carries anything away.

This misconceptions arises, generally, from that shitty analogy between spacial expansion and a baloon expanding. This is not how spacial expansion works at all. Two points, or two galaxies, grow farther apart with respect to time because more space is coming into existance between them, but the galaxies themselves are not moving. The distance between them simply grows with respect to time.

2. The stretching out of lightwaves spacial expansion.

The redshift of lightwaves between two galaxies in respect to spacial expansion, is an optical illusion. The lightwaves are stretched as more space comes into existance.

The galaxies are not really traveling apart faster than light, but the combination of distance increasing with respect to time and the redshift of photons from said galaxies gives us the illusion that they are.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 17:45:10 2013 No.5585882

>>5585298

Warping spacetime does not allow information to get from A to B faster. Because light can still travel the warped spacetime and travel faster than you would. Warped spacetime simply reduces the amount of distance you have to travel, but light can always travel that same distance through warped spacetime and beat you. This is why alcubierre drives dont remove the problem of causality. You are only warping spacetime locally, and then riding that wave from point A to point B faster than light.

SR may only hold in flat spacetime, but general relativity can account for warped spacetime by defining arbitrary local points throughout the curved spacetime, where c will always measure c relative to a local observer.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 22:42:27 2013 No.5586706

>>5585881

>removes causality

Lets assume holographic universe/quantum graphity. Is this still the case? Layman here btw, but go ahead and use some actually math if you know it.

Btw, I am not the person youve been responding to. Ive actually been wondering this since two years ago when I watched Wolframs "A New Kind of Science" lecture where he applies a lot of computational solutions to problems in the physical universe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 22:45:10 2013 No.5586711 >>5585348 >google "Landry" >first 10 results for super model >google "Landry model" >Results are no better >wiki article has no redirects to any scientists Can /sci/ help a nigga get educated?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:01:56 2013 No.5586753 The only rule is that the speed of light barrier cannot be broken by matter energy or information. Things can appear to move faster than c, but in reality they don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Phase_velocities_above_c

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:09:41 2013 No.5586774 >>5586753 >tachyons? Are they not considered matter, energy, or information?

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:17:28 2013 No.5586800

Im hoping someone will tell my why this is a retarded idea

Okay, so imagine your playing your vidya (Space Invaders cause its easier to think in 2 dimensions than 3). When you are holding the game controller, you are an observer who can interact with the game environment. For you to move your ship across the screen, you must "drag" it through every pixel on the screen between between your starting point and your destination. The speed at which you can do this has a hard limit based on the controller, your reflexes, and the computer which creates and runs the game.

However, it is possible for the game to make the ship "appear" anywhere on the game screen. Furthermore, the game could cause the ship to "appear" at your starting point, and then "appear" at your destination point, without dragging the ship across all the pixels in between.

Im assuming this is the principle behind all these star trek warp drives they are allegedly making?

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:18:12 2013 No.5586807

First of all I want to explain something that most people have trouble understanding. Think of the speed of light as a universal constant.

It's the fastest anything can travel without breaking continuity. You can overcome this by taking shortcuts so that you can arrive at your destination before the light does but you can't actually go faster than the light itself.

If I'm wrong then someone correct me.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:31:40 2013 No.5586823

>>5586800
The motion only appears instantaneous from the perspective of the observer in your example. In reality electrical charge is passing thru wires and cables and lighting up pixels.

The data doesn't actually disappear and reappear at a distance instantaneously. Moreover, we're have control of the the architecutre of the circuitry behind the game; not exactly the case with our universe. Imagine the little space ship that's actually just bits of game data gaining self awareness and attempting to find a way to hack the game data or even modify the hardware itself, which is what you're suggesting in principle. Much less feasible (although I don't see a reason why it should be impossible).

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:37:11 2013 No.5586828

>>5586711
I'm pretty sure it's just some guy who made a video that's circulating and that is very reductionist, haven't seen it but was told it implies an atomic model that doesn't have neutrons or most of the standard model. From what I heard, the model was interesting but he is trying to undo almost a hundred years of grounded interpretation. If I find it I will post on youtube.

Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:38:26 2013 No.5586831

>>5586823

>have control of the the architecutre

I actually considered this, but didnt feel like typing it. I like to imagine "god" being a handy man with a dirty toolbox and shitty overalls :)

>motion only appears instantaneous from the perspective of the observer

So does that mean it also only appears slow when its moving through pixels for the same reasons? (perspective of observer vs "actual" state of observed) That would sort of mean that "speed" doesnt actually exist, which would not contradict a holographic universe

And my final parting comment: I always hate using analogies :)

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:46:10 2013 No.5586839 File: 135 KB, 1190x1354, 1271262986621.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5586828 oh... hands in pockets head down I wish I had some Arthur to post right now but i dont, so have some random info

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:50:12 2013 No.5586844 >>5582769 >>5582769 fuck yourself

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 5 23:53:26 2013 No.5586847 Does this thread show that /sci/ is retarded?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 00:03:11 2013 No.5586865 >>5586807 The photon yes has a speed that is the maximum velocity but also consider the movement of the spiraling energy that composes this photon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 01:53:41 2013 No.5587062 >>5585882 >alcubierre drives dont remove the problem of causality Oh ok, then I guess we're actually agreeing. I was just objecting to some people saying it actually violates causality by definition, which is entirely different.

Anonymous Wed Mar 6 03:32:42 2013 No.5587175

>>5582448
>theoretical
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Tachyons have imaginary mass. Making them un-physical.
They are purely mathematical beings with no physical context. They were essentially invented because the math spat them out.

>>	Sheldon Copper Wed Mar 6 03:37:28 2013 No.5587178 File: 576 KB, 2000x2950, 1360120724579.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5582989 I shouldn't take all the credit But I do deserve it do I

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 03:39:25 2013 No.5587182 >>5586865 A photon isn't really a "thing" and the energy isn't spiraling the photon, that just isn't how it works. The photon is the energy "packet", something you should have learned in an introductory Modern Physics course (preceding QM).

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 04:50:56 2013 No.5587267 >>5586807 This is how most science fiction handles things. Bending space, going through "alternate dimensions" such as hyperspace. Relatively few actually go faster than light.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 05:21:56 2013 No.5587309 >>5582830 Very carefully.

Anonymous Wed Mar 6 11:07:10 2013 No.5587762

>>5587182
What ARE things then? You could easily make a claim that by traditional standards, nothing in the world is real. All is composed of mainly nothing interspersed with the odd bit of something. Time, gravity, mass, religion, evolution, colours.

It never ends. Please explain how a photon is "less real": Define reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 11:41:40 2013 No.5587806 not as of now but the rate of time is not constant so who knows. also vacuum is a medium, what if a different medium for faster travel?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 11:50:11 2013 No.5587826 File: 21 KB, 480x260, mov04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the enterprise goes a lot faster than light. you fucking morans.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 11:50:55 2013 No.5587828 >>5582369 Yes. Kingship travels to the heir instantly upon death - there is no point when there isn't a king/queen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 11:52:11 2013 No.5587832 >>5582404 >Implying Gen Ys won't live to be 200

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 11:53:57 2013 No.5587833 >>5586800 >When you are holding the game controller... Do you mean the Atari version of Space Invaders? Because the arcade version didn't have a hand-held controller.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 11:59:40 2013 No.5587838 >>5587826 Actually, the space around the Enterprise move, not Enterprise itself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 16:09:34 2013 No.5588339 >>5587838 So what if 2 ships move space in different dirrections with Warp Drive.. Wouldn't that just rip space?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 16:14:27 2013 No.5588348 >>5588339 It moves the local space, not the whole universe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 16:40:26 2013 No.5588399 before being allowed to post on sci, one should have demonstrate a basic understanding of the lorentz transformation and it's consequences on time dilation and what it would mean to be moving faster than c.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 17:35:42 2013 No.5588508 >>5588399 Let's ask moot to have that instead of captcha.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 17:39:27 2013 No.5588520 >>5588399 >faster than c you want hypothesised borderline pseudo science on the test?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 17:39:42 2013 No.5588522 >>5585379 Wormholes are shortcuts not speed boosts so that means you're not going faster than light that's getting to a destination faster. If you went down a wormhole with a light source at the opening the light would get to the destination before you.

Anonymous Wed Mar 6 17:49:42 2013 No.5588547

>>5586828
I believe we need a lot more variant atomic models without the basic 'superball' toy so many of us enjoyed playing with as kids.

Let's face it, we are "trying to visualize" things down below a certain level and it may be unfit for eyesight or the first 99 imaginationings.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 17:50:12 2013 No.5588553 >>5588520 I think he means how FTL is nonsensical considering Lorentz transformations. >That feel knowing I wouldn't pass the test

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 18:01:12 2013 No.5588587 >>5588520 >Dat reading comprehension

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 6 18:03:57 2013 No.5588595 >>5582369 i wud cum in her faster than light

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math