12 of 16
12
Faster than the speed of light?
Posted: 24 June 2008 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 166 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2007-09-14
faster - 24 June 2008 02:29 PM

Communication is available at above the speed of light. A laser beam is split and sent in two different directions.
When the photons reach a target they can be manipulated at on site and the photons that are at the other site will react.
This reaction takes place faster than the speed of light. Einstein said he could not explain it.
A test of the affect was just completed in France.
For more information follow this link.
http://www.physicspost.com/science-article-213.html

Spooky isn’t it.

Quantum entaglement is very odd, but by itself it does not facilitate faster-than-light communication.  So your statement “communication ...above the speed of light” isn’t quite accurate.  You are right that it’s a very spooky, counter-intuitive thing, though!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2008 02:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 167 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-06-25

How do you move a pencil that is 92 million miles long? And even if it was made from diamond there would still be a wave traveling through. And i would think that electricity moves slower than the speed of light because of resistance in the wires.
Also the resistance of a wire 92 million miles long would have to be greater than any current we could imagine to pump through it. as for a super conductor i assume it still can’t beat light for speed.

I tried to leave out all the obvious problems like being melted or actually moving a pencil against the suns gravity while you are on it.

[ Edited: 25 June 2008 02:18 AM by macro820 ]
 Signature 

Many bottles of alcohol were harmed in the making of this story.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2008 06:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 168 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2008-06-25

Okay so, I stumbled upon this whole argument, read the first 2 or 3 slides, do i’m not sure if what i have to say has been fully addressed but here we go.

The whole “neighboring atom interaction” stuff, that would propagate the information down the pencil are called phonon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

In solids there are branches of propagation, Generally described as 2 branches, an acoustical and an optical branch. The acoustical branch being the type of motion that would propagate a knock on 1 side of a door to the other. The optical a little more complex, but higher energy branch with faster interactions with light and such.

They are described in different modes of motion, generally with 1 longitudinal and 2 transverse modes, so, yes, the person who in the argument who first said that pulling the atoms would create a wave of sorts, which would travel slower than the speed of light, is indeed 100% correct. Regardless of if its pushing motions, sliding left and right motions, any of these motions need to propagate using one of these modes, and therefore in that sense the information cannot travel faster than light.

Now: for the transmission of information faster than light: quantum entanglement,

while it works, the biggest problem with it is, essentially after you mess with 1 side, the information happens on the other side instantaneously for “1” property. as in, you can only affect the properties of 1 side 1 time, and transfer that information before it becomes useless.
If we break it down into “bits” like computers or something, then you can transmit 1 bit, but then that bit that u used to transfer the info is lost. So, it is impossible on a large scale use such as space travel, unless a continuous ‘beam’ is sent to both parties and manipulated in that way.

Now that second part, that whole quantum entanglement argument, I’m not 100% sure of, i’ve never really specifically went out and researched it to a large extent or studied the true properties of it. - so don’t take my word 100%, but i’m pretty sure that’s the case.

Edit: read some stuff about the ‘circuit’ idea. Figured I’d add a bit there.

in circuits, such as wiring and stuff (if we weren’t using superconductors first), The electrons are moving around very, very fast in all directions (still not speed of light though). Now, these electrons bouncing around are pushed by an electric field down the wire, inducing a ‘drift’ velocity. It’s the same as say, Air down a tunnel. All the air around you right now is moving at 100s of miles per hour (not sure of the number, I’d have to go look at my stat mech notes) but still, very fast. If you ‘blow’ on them, put a fan up or something, you create a drift velocity. While they are still moving very fast, the motion of the wind created is still very small compared to their speeds. Same thing with electronics, even seemingly ‘instant’ switches and electric currents, are still governed by that. Now, in superconductors where there is no internal resistance or anything, (Not 100% sure of this, but…) I would assume that the electrons would not bounce around, instead would align perfectly with the electric field kinda, and therefore travel very fast (accelerating towards the positive terminal) but still, even if accelerating infinitely, would never reach speed of light.

I’ll check back later and answer any questions about what I’ve said, hopefully Ive made sense.

Edit2:

About the whole, spinning universe all that deal.

Lets look at it from Sun - Earth system, We all know we rotate around the Sun~ Okay, so interesting fact is that, if you were to “remove” the sun, instantly, just get rid of it, we would still continue orbiting the sun, keeping the same path we were heading until the ‘7-8’ minutes, when the gravitational waves have met us, and ‘relieve’ the curve of space pulling us towards the sun. After which we would then shoot out in a straight line, rather than the curved path. (assuming no other interactions with other planets and such.) But even the force that makes things orbit, and spin, travels at the speed of light (Einstein’s stuff goes into that) (I think i’ve hit upon most of the discussions in this topic now) again, hopefully its helpful / understandable.

[ Edited: 25 June 2008 06:31 AM by bluecoconut ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2008 01:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 169 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-06-23

It was my understanding from earlier discussion that quantum entanglement could not be used to transmit information and thus could not locally violate the speed of light principle. 

I recently found THIS ARTICLE that points to new research that seems to indirectly contradict the this statement.

Here’s a quote:

Using a convenient and flexible method for creating twin light beams, researchers at the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) of the Commerce Departments National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Maryland have produced quantum images, pairs of information-rich visual patterns whose features are entangled, or inextricably linked by the laws of quantum physics.

The only thing I really doubt about this research is my understanding of it, so I guess I’m wondering why this new research does not constitute a violation of relativity.  How would this work if information wasn’t transferred?

 Signature 

“There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.”   

..............-Isaac Asimov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2008 04:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 170 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

Hello Chocotacoi8,

I’m a bit confused as to how you see this as transmitting information faster than light. Could you explain how this system would do that?

In particular, each of the images may be information rich, but each only travels at the speed of light. The entanglement is what is superluminal, but the entanglement itself does not transmit any additional information.

I would also take any news item with large grains of salt which comes from a website managed by Whitley Strieber. He is definitely on the woo fringe, and believes he has been abducted by aliens. See also HERE: “He says that for years he has been carrying an alien implant in the back of his left ear, which has caused him to hear Morse code-like beeps, as well as voices.” This sort of a claim is a classic symptom of schizophrenia. He was also linked indirectly to the Heaven’s Gate cult belief that comet Hale-Bopp was being followed by a UFO. (See HERE).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2008 07:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 171 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-06-23

@dougsmith

I would also take any news item with large grains of salt which comes from a website managed by Whitley Strieber. He is definitely on the woo fringe, and believes he has been abducted by aliens. See also HERE: “He says that for years he has been carrying an alien implant in the back of his left ear, which has caused him to hear Morse code-like beeps, as well as voices.” This sort of a claim is a classic symptom of schizophrenia. He was also linked indirectly to the Heaven’s Gate cult belief that comet Hale-Bopp was being followed by a UFO. (See HERE).

um…eeek…but at least it appears he just copied this article from the Joint Quantum Institute’s website…HERE.  (hopefully the latter is more reputable than the former)

I think I just in general have a poor understanding of entanglement.  Can the images themselves be manipulated in any way?  Wouldn’t changing one image result in the other one changing?  If I split a laser beam so the now two laser beams went to the opposite sides of the galaxy and something happened to one image on one side, wouldn’t it change the image instantaneously across the other side of the galaxy?

Thinking about the problem a little closer, I guess maybe this doesn’t occur because of the inherent randomness of quantum entanglement.  The fluctuations between the images occur at random so are unpredictable and unusable for information transfer.  (is this close?)  I think in my first reading I thought that’s how they were utilizing quantum entanglement, wherby you could see the image either upside down or right side up and that is a kind of image transfer.  In previous discussions about quantum entanglement there was only a particle involved and so I had thought the problem might be determining which direction it was in…I don’t think this is the case now. 

Am I at least on the right track with this?

Update: I just noticed that the “contact” on the new article from the JQI is “Ben Stein”...hopefully there is no relation….if there is please don’t kick me from the forum eh heh…:/

[ Edited: 30 June 2008 08:03 AM by Chocotacoi8 ]
 Signature 

“There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.”   

..............-Isaac Asimov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2008 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 172 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
Chocotacoi8 - 30 June 2008 07:59 AM

um…eeek…but at least it appears he just copied this article from the Joint Quantum Institute’s website…HERE.  (hopefully the latter is more reputable than the former)

Yes, it is; very.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t claiming that there was something wrong with the original article, just that I would be leery of trawling for good information on a site associated with someone like Strieber.

Chocotacoi8 - 30 June 2008 07:59 AM

I think I just in general have a poor understanding of entanglement.  Can the images themselves be manipulated in any way?  Wouldn’t changing one image result in the other one changing?  If I split a laser beam so the now two laser beams went to the opposite sides of the galaxy and something happened to one image on one side, wouldn’t it change the image instantaneously across the other side of the galaxy?

Thinking about the problem a little closer, I guess maybe this doesn’t occur because of the inherent randomness of quantum entanglement.  The fluctuations between the images occur at random so are unpredictable and unusable for information transfer.  (is this close?)  I think in my first reading I thought that’s how they were utilizing quantum entanglement, wherby you could see the image either upside down or right side up and that is a kind of image transfer.  In previous discussions about quantum entanglement there was only a particle involved and so I had thought the problem might be determining which direction it was in…I don’t think this is the case now. 

Am I at least on the right track with this?

As I understand it, the entaglement is instantaneous, but as you note, it is random in certain ways, so that no information can be transmitted faster than light using it. In order to garner any information (in addition to that transmitted normally with the signal) you would need to go and look at the other signal, which would involve a trip no faster than ‘c’.

HERE is a good discussion of the issues involved in this problem.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2008 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 173 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-06-23

@dougsmith

Thanks for the quantum entanglement link!  Goodbye Monday….

 Signature 

“There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.”   

..............-Isaac Asimov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 174 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2008-06-20

On this topic, here’s an interesting article on the first image made utilizing quantum entanglement. It does not represent faster than light communication, because the entangled particles themselves still travel at the speed of light, however it is still an interesting development.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/ghost-imaging-s.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 06:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 175 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2008-07-03

Hey all really interesting read, stumbled it as well.

I’m an engineer so am fascinated by all this. Along similar lines, I was thinking about the original problem and coined one of my own. If someone could explain to me why this wouldn’t work I’m all ears.

Imagine a disc. Since its possible to accelerate something very close to C what would happen if we accelerated the middle of the disc at this immense speed. Similar to all the other problems earlier on I’d imagine that the matter (i.e. the disc) toward the other rim would deform due to the materials elastic properties. To visualise this we could draw a cross on the disc… after the center is spun up to C (or slightly below it) the cross would start to become two S shapes. But what if we accelerated it to a certain speed and left it at a constant velocity for a certain amount of time which would allow the elasticity to reach an equilibrium. Then step it up again and so on until the middle of the disc was spinning at such a speed that the outer rim would exceed C. Would this work? More so could somebody explain to me why it wouldn’t.

On another note that might spark a bit if a chat on the same subject. What would happen if they had built the Large Hadron Collider inside a rotating chamber that could be spun really fast. Excusing the ridiculous logistics of such a project would the particles they accelerate surpass C relative to a bystander standing on solid ground. Sorry just a ridiculous thought I had that I wanted to add.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 176 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2008-06-24
KA_Fel - 03 July 2008 06:35 PM

Hey all really interesting read, stumbled it as well.

I’m an engineer so am fascinated by all this. Along similar lines, I was thinking about the original problem and coined one of my own. If someone could explain to me why this wouldn’t work I’m all ears.

Imagine a disc. Since its possible to accelerate something very close to C what would happen if we accelerated the middle of the disc at this immense speed. Similar to all the other problems earlier on I’d imagine that the matter (i.e. the disc) toward the other rim would deform due to the materials elastic properties. To visualise this we could draw a cross on the disc… after the center is spun up to C (or slightly below it) the cross would start to become two S shapes. But what if we accelerated it to a certain speed and left it at a constant velocity for a certain amount of time which would allow the elasticity to reach an equilibrium. Then step it up again and so on until the middle of the disc was spinning at such a speed that the outer rim would exceed C. Would this work? More so could somebody explain to me why it wouldn’t.

Given that the disc is getting progressively “flatter,” the increase in acceleration of the outer part of the disc would become less and less as well.  Consider the “half step” idea—if I progressively halve my distance to a particular target, I’ll never reach the target, even though I keep getting closer.  So if you’re 99% of the speed of light and the outer edge is accelerated to 99.5% of the speed of light, if you increase the speed of the disc to 99.5% of the speed of light, the outer edge would now be 99.75% of c (obviously those numbers are in no way accurate).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 177 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2008-06-20
fangor - 03 July 2008 10:50 AM

On this topic, here’s an interesting article on the first image made utilizing quantum entanglement. It does not represent faster than light communication, because the entangled particles themselves still travel at the speed of light, however it is still an interesting development.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/ghost-imaging-s.html

I don’t think a lot of us are going to understand that. You apparently don’t need to go measure the photon that actually strikes an object to get information from the other particle.
If you had some kind of entangled pair emitter halfway between you and what you were trying to get images of why wouldn’t you be getting the data the instant photons were striking your picture material?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 07:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 178 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2008-06-20
KA_Fel - 03 July 2008 06:35 PM

Hey all really interesting read, stumbled it as well.

I’m an engineer so am fascinated by all this. Along similar lines, I was thinking about the original problem and coined one of my own. If someone could explain to me why this wouldn’t work I’m all ears.

Imagine a disc. Since its possible to accelerate something very close to C what would happen if we accelerated the middle of the disc at this immense speed. Similar to all the other problems earlier on I’d imagine that the matter (i.e. the disc) toward the other rim would deform due to the materials elastic properties. To visualise this we could draw a cross on the disc… after the center is spun up to C (or slightly below it) the cross would start to become two S shapes. But what if we accelerated it to a certain speed and left it at a constant velocity for a certain amount of time which would allow the elasticity to reach an equilibrium. Then step it up again and so on until the middle of the disc was spinning at such a speed that the outer rim would exceed C. Would this work? More so could somebody explain to me why it wouldn’t.

On another note that might spark a bit if a chat on the same subject. What would happen if they had built the Large Hadron Collider inside a rotating chamber that could be spun really fast. Excusing the ridiculous logistics of such a project would the particles they accelerate surpass C relative to a bystander standing on solid ground. Sorry just a ridiculous thought I had that I wanted to add.

The elasticity of the disk can only exert a force on the more distant radius material so it won’t ever go faster that the speed of light. If you fed enough kinetic energy into the system it would eventually be forced to rip itself into several pieces.

Didn’t your physics courses ever put you in a lab with a… oh what do you call the blasted things-
Well, the machine that uses magnetic charges to propel an electron with basically how ever much force you want to use.

RelativityTable.gif
We’re able to give an input energy waaaay higher than you’d need to go faster than light if matter always followed Newtonian mechanics.

[ Edited: 03 July 2008 07:55 PM by Shoku ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 08:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 179 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2008-06-24
Shoku - 03 July 2008 07:53 PM

Didn’t your physics courses ever put you in a lab with a… oh what do you call the blasted things-
Well, the machine that uses magnetic charges to propel an electron with basically how ever much force you want to use.

Ha! Ha!  That sounds like my memories of physics class!  You know, that thing…that goes on the thing…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 11:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 180 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4580
Joined  2007-08-31

Hi KA_Fel,

The answer is easier: the atoms in the outer rim, coming closer to c, become heavier and heavier. In the end you would need so much energy to accelerate further, it would rip the disk to pieces.

Do not try it, it would be dangerous for everybody who is looking at it… wink

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
12 of 16
12