Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 2 of 2«12
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Speed of light , teleportation or wormhole theory here!
Speed of light , teleportation or wormhole theory here!
RockoRocksDate: Saturday, 10.05.2014, 08:23 | Message # 16
World Builder
Group: Users
Belgium
Messages: 673
Status: Offline
This thread is probably made by a troll and is absolutely useless. We should archive or delete it soon. I can't believe it got THIS many replies.

This has got to be the biggest pile of pseudoscientific technobabblejunk i've ever seen..





I will be inactive on this forum for the time being. Might come back eventually

AMD AR-3305M APU w/ Radeon HD 1.90 GHz 6,00 GB RAM


Edited by RockoRocks - Saturday, 10.05.2014, 08:34
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 10.05.2014, 14:46 | Message # 17
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote RockoRocks ()
absolutely useless

That's not true, it has entertainment value happy

Quote RockoRocks ()
We should archive or delete it soon. I can't believe it got THIS many replies.

Both of the admins on the site have seen and replied to this thread. If they (and I mean we) haven't done anything with it yet, then maybe they have a reason.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
Antza2Date: Saturday, 10.05.2014, 16:43 | Message # 18
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
desertsoldier22Date: Monday, 18.08.2014, 03:35 | Message # 19
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 51
Status: Offline
[humorous yet inappropriate for this forum image macro removed] -wats

Edited by Watsisname - Monday, 18.08.2014, 04:32
 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 18.08.2014, 06:43 | Message # 20
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2607
Status: Offline
So I think that instead of continuing this thread's theme of making silly posts, I will make a serious post. Speedofteleportation has made an appropriate thread topic. His OP content is … extremely silly, but there are nevertheless some interesting discussion points to be had.

Quote
we cannot go to speed light because of matter


This is basically correct, and discussing why will set the theme for the plausibility of teleportation ideas.

It is impossible to accelerate any particle with inertial mass from v<c to v=c. There's a particular rule of space-time physics operating here which explains why this is true, and there are many different yet equivalent ways of describing it. You can say the energy required to accelerate a mass approaches infinity as its speed approaches c, or that its inertial mass approaches infinity, or that velocities themselves are not linearly additive as our intuition would expect. But the underlying rule is that space-time, that four-dimensional structure composed of 3 spatial and 1 temporal coordinates, is not Euclidean. Let's see what this means by starting simply in familiar 2-dimensional space and working our way up. I'll keep the math as simple as possible.

The way to measure distances in 2D Euclidean space should be familiar to everyone -- it's just the Pythagorean theorem:
a2 + b2 = c2

This tells us that given two points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), the distance (which we'll call r) between them is simply the square root of (x2-x1)2 + (y2-y1)2. We can write this in differential form as
dr2 = dx2 + dy2, which we call a "metric", or method of defining distance in this geometry.

In 3D Euclidean space this formula is still very straightforward. It takes the exact same form, and you just add a term for the additional dimension which we'll label z. We get
dr2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2

Now let's think about space-time, which is four-dimensional. We'll use space coordinates x, y, z, and time coordinate t. If space-time was Euclidean, then our method of measuring distances (which we'll label s for "space-time interval"), would still be very simple:
ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2 + c2dt2 = dr2 + (cdt)2

We introduce the speed of light c with the time coordinate for dimensional consistency. The dimensions of c are distance/time, and the dimensions of t is time. (Distance/time)*time = distance and so we properly equate to the left hand side and all is good. Except not. Space-time is not Euclidean. Its geometry is Minkowskian and is fundamentally different. The metric is actually this:
ds2 = dr2 - (cdt)2

A minus sign? That's weird. Minus signs don't show up in the Pythagorean Theorem. It also suggests a way for a squared quantity (ds2) to be negative, if dr2 is less than (cdt)2. That's weird, too, but it turns out to be useful in describing three regimes of motion. If ds2 is negative, you are dealing with slower-than-light motion, or a "time-like" curve. ds2=0 represents the speed of light or "light-like" curve, and ds2>0 is faster than light or "space-like" curve.

All of the strange consequences of special relativity (time dilation, etc) are essentially consequences of this metric. The impossibility of faster-than-light travel simply a recognition that if a signal could move faster than c (space-like trajectory), then it is possible for an observer to see it return to its origin at an earlier time than when it departed -- the effect precedes its own cause. This invokes paradoxes and is generally perceived to be a bad thing. I.e. this cannot be true and physics must forbid space-like signals. Entities endowed with mass must follow time-like curve, and the fastest we can send a signal is with a light-like curve.

It might be possible to overcome this by directly manipulating the geometry of space-time -- general relativistic effects as opposed to special relativistic. This would include such things as worm-holes and Alcubierre drives, which are valid solutions to relativistic equations, but require certain and perhaps impossible configurations of matter and energy.





 
VoekoevakaDate: Monday, 18.08.2014, 12:36 | Message # 21
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
There are many scientific and linguistic innacurancies on his post, but I think he is talking about out of body experiences.




Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 18.08.2014, 13:22 | Message # 22
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2607
Status: Offline
That indeed seems to be the case. What I am trying to aim us toward with the above is an understanding of the significance of the speed of light and space-time physics, then applying it to these various teleportation ideas in order to help us form conclusions on what is or is not possible.

If Out of Body Experiences (OOBE's) are real, in the sense that a person's consciousness (or whatever) is actually being transported to another location in our universe, then this represents the transmission of information through space-time, and so the following argument can be made:

(i) They do not exhibit faster-than-light behavior.
or
(ii) They must involve hitherto unverified space-time transformations.
or
(iii) our understanding of space-time physics must be wrong.

Granted, (iii) could be true independently, but if the premise is true, and (i) and (ii) are both false, then (iii) must be true.

I am personally of the view that the premise is false, though. I am not convinced that OOBE's are meaningfully different than regular dreams. I think that everything the person is experiencing is a production of their own mind -- there is no externalization. My own experiences with lucid dreaming are consistent with this. I could be swayed if controlled experimental trials demonstrate that subjects can gain information about events from which they are otherwise isolated, but I've seen no such convincing data.





 
midtskogenDate: Monday, 18.08.2014, 14:25 | Message # 23
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1667
Status: Offline
I wonder, if someone with poor vision has an OOBE, does he or she has corrected vision while out of body as if still wearing glasses?




NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
VoekoevakaDate: Monday, 18.08.2014, 14:34 | Message # 24
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
I could be swayed if controlled experimental trials demonstrate that subjects can gain information about events from which they are otherwise isolated, but I've seen no no such convincing data.

In my case, I have done lucid dreaming, sleep paralysis and OBEs, and these experiences were very different for me, even if I can jump from one to one fast. And then I tried to see what is possible with OBEs, and when I was in Marseille, I remember I went to see a building in construction 500 meters away from where I live, some mornings when I had an OBE, and I looked the building to see what's new (a staircase, a new floor...). And then I went there, and what I saw was here. So it convinced me that there is a part of reality in the experience.

I know this is very difficult to convince other people, as reproductibility is often not possible or very difficult with the facts that deals with conscienceness. In my case, OBE occur randomly, and I almost never succeed to provoke one of them with my will. I hope that in the future, conscienceness will be studied by science with a deeper understanding, to put a light on such facts.

Quote Watsisname ()
I think that everything the person is experiencing is a production of their own mind -- there is no externalization.

This is an interresting hypothesis, and I was thinking about it before my OBEs. And after, I changed the idea for something like "reality itself is created by my mind, like in a dream, but with more inertia". But this create a paradox : everybond can think of that : you, me, and anybody who think they are creating what they see. But solving this paradox is very far from actual science, and we don't have enough knowledge to make an hypothesis which can be verified.





Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
WatsisnameDate: Tuesday, 19.08.2014, 21:23 | Message # 25
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2607
Status: Offline
That's some great stuff. smile I have had a number of lucid dreams, in which an enjoyable trick is to teleport to another location. Although, I don't view it so much as changing your location within a space as producing a new space around you to replace the old one. It is not like an OBE, where the space is apparently consistent and continuous just as in the waking world, and the viewer freely moves throughout it. The OBE experience is very intriguing.

Quote Voekoevaka ()
This is an interresting hypothesis, and I was thinking about it before my OBEs. And after, I changed the idea for something like "reality itself is created by my mind, like in a dream, but with more inertia". But this create a paradox : everybond can think of that : you, me, and anybody who think they are creating what they see. But solving this paradox is very far from actual science, and we don't have enough knowledge to make an hypothesis which can be verified.


Yeah, falsifiability is the problem there. All methods we have for doing an experiment require the following: a system and an apparatus. The system we may call "reality". The apparatus is something that interacts with that system in order to make measurements. Usually, the act of making a measurement does not change the system in an appreciable way (this is not true in quantum mechanics), and so we can do experiments to learn things about the world around us.

But now suppose that all of reality is created by your own mind. If this is the case, there is no apparatus that can achieve results independently. Any result it gives you is also a product of your mind. Your mind may be sufficiently clever as to produce the illusion of a consistent external reality no matter how hard you try to test otherwise.

If, on the other hand, all of reality is a creation of our collective consciousness, then it becomes difficult to reconcile with the clear evidence of an evolutionary history of the universe not governed by biology. That the universe seems to operate by a set of laws, immutable and uncharacteristic of what a collective of humans might have chosen, also makes a collectively-created reality seem unlikely. I rather view consciousness as something that arises in sufficiently developed biological systems, via a process we certainly do not fully understand. smile





 
VoekoevakaDate: Wednesday, 20.08.2014, 18:00 | Message # 26
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
Poor "Speedofteleportation"... If he doesn't come here, he'll not see that we are having a serious discussion about his case...

Quote Watsisname ()
It is not like an OBE, where the space is apparently consistent and continuous just as in the waking world, and the viewer freely moves throughout it. The OBE experience is very intriguing.

My experiences show me that it is not always the case. I have often done a very precise and "real" OBE, and then it started to degenerate and became a lucid dream, then a simple dream, with "imaginary" objects being more and more prenent among "real" objects.
The inverse thing happened also : starting from a lucid dream, I started to feel that things are more "real" and then I could see myseld in the real world. Or sometimes, I'm on the real world, able to see and report thinhs, and there are additional objects present (like new furniture), and different lighting, like a bright light in the sky during a night where there is no moon, or beams of lights through the window...

Quote Watsisname ()
Yeah, falsifiability is the problem there. All methods we have for doing an experiment require the following: a system and an apparatus. The system we may call "reality".

Some teams started to do experiments about that : for instance, a team have tried to hide images in hospitals for patients doing NDEs to being able to describe them. But generally, because funds are almost inexistant for this kind of research, results are rare. And scientists having positive results in most cases are not able to publish their results as no journal would publish them.

Quote Watsisname ()
If, on the other hand, all of reality is a creation of our collective consciousness, then it becomes difficult to reconcile with the clear evidence of an evolutionary history of the universe not governed by biology. That the universe seems to operate by a set of laws, immutable and uncharacteristic of what a collective of humans might have chosen, also makes a collectively-created reality seem unlikely. I rather view consciousness as something that arises in sufficiently developed biological systems, via a process we certainly do not fully understand.

Or maybe conscienceness is present in all the parts of the universe in different forms that we couldn't imagine. That's why exoplanets are consistent.





Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Speed of light , teleportation or wormhole theory here!
Page 2 of 2«12
Search: