It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Erno86
ROMULAN! I always got the impression gravitics and magnetics did the job by reducing (somehow) the mass of the object.
originally posted by: Oannes
If a black hole can draw in light, doesn't that mean that the black hole is pulling faster than the speed of light?
If light can't be seen directly in outer space (which has been theorized recently), then who's to say that light has a definite speed at all? Maybe light only has the properties we know of in Earth's atmosphere. Outside of Earths matrix, it could be infinite.
originally posted by: skunkape23
This may be a stupid question. I'm sure if it is it will be pointed out by some of the great minds that frequent this site. Based on what I've been told, the speed of light is an absolute speed. Nothing can move faster. Now, say I am driving my car a 50 mph and turn on the headlights. Are the beams from my lights not traveling at the speed of light + 50 mph?
originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: skunkape23
The speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT no matter what they tell you,They can slow light down to 38 miles per hour in the lab and have heard they now have stationary photons.Even more all sub-atomic particles are speeding in many times faster than light and forming all atoms and then break apart and fly off faster than light again at such a high frequency that they cant measure it because there instruments are doing it also. So nothing is solid, nothing is real and matter is being generated on demand for the observer.
Slowing light this way doesn't violate any principle of physics. Einstein's theory of relativity places an upper, but not lower, limit on the speed of light.
According to relativity theory, an astronaut traveling at close to the speed of light will not get old as fast as those she leaves behind on Earth. But driving at 38 miles an hour, as everyone knows, will not affect anyone's rate of aging.
"However, slowing light can certainly help our understanding of the bizarre state of matter of a Bose-Einstein condensate," Hau points out.
In the media and popular science, quantum nonlocality is often portrayed as being equivalent to entanglement. While it is true that a bipartite quantum state must be entangled in order for it to produce nonlocal correlations, there exist entangled states which do not produce such correlations. A well-known example of this is constituted by a subset of Werner states that are entangled but whose correlations can always be described using local hidden variables.[18] On the other hand, reasonably simple examples of Bell inequalities have been found for which the quantum state giving the largest violation is never a maximally entangled state, showing that entanglement is, in some sense, not even proportional to nonlocality.[25][26][27]
In short, entanglement of a two-party state is necessary but not sufficient for that state to be nonlocal. It is important to recognise that entanglement is more commonly viewed as an algebraic concept, noted for being a precedent to nonlocality as well as quantum teleportation and superdense coding, whereas nonlocality is interpreted according to experimental statistics and is much more involved with the foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics.
originally posted by: skunkape23
This may be a stupid question. I'm sure if it is it will be pointed out by some of the great minds that frequent this site. Based on what I've been told, the speed of light is an absolute speed. Nothing can move faster. Now, say I am driving my car a 50 mph and turn on the headlights. Are the beams from my lights not traveling at the speed of light + 50 mph?
originally posted by: ctdannyd
originally posted by: skunkape23
This may be a stupid question. I'm sure if it is it will be pointed out by some of the great minds that frequent this site. Based on what I've been told, the speed of light is an absolute speed. Nothing can move faster. Now, say I am driving my car a 50 mph and turn on the headlights. Are the beams from my lights not traveling at the speed of light + 50 mph?
One of the reasons that light is discussed in Einsteins theory is that light is, well, relative. It's speed is relative no matter where it is, or how fast "it's going". Even if two masses both approaching each other at the speed of light, their combined closing speeds will not be C x2. BECAUSE their speed is relative.
Take that into your brain and wrap it around a few gazillion times!!
Time dilation is the effect that I didn't see anybody else mention, and some answers were completely wrong. While JiggyPotamus is correct that high rates of speed manifest relativistic properties, I'm not sure it was clear from the answer that ANY rate of speed has time dilation, it's just more noticeable at higher speeds.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
But, there are strange properties that manifest at such high rates of speed. These are time dilation and length contraction if I remember correctly. It can all be quite confusing and I am by no means well-versed on the topic, but I am relatively certain that I am correct in this instance.
originally posted by: solomons path
originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: skunkape23
The speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT no matter what they tell you,They can slow light down to 38 miles per hour in the lab and have heard they now have stationary photons.Even more all sub-atomic particles are speeding in many times faster than light and forming all atoms and then break apart and fly off faster than light again at such a high frequency that they cant measure it because there instruments are doing it also. So nothing is solid, nothing is real and matter is being generated on demand for the observer.
Slowing the speed of light must be done under conditions that don't exist in space. Also, no matter what WHO tells you? An actual physicist or people making statements that are outdated? It's a mistake to confuse the public's understanding of current scientific models or principles with what the actual scientists in the field claim.
Slowing light this way doesn't violate any principle of physics. Einstein's theory of relativity places an upper, but not lower, limit on the speed of light.
According to relativity theory, an astronaut traveling at close to the speed of light will not get old as fast as those she leaves behind on Earth. But driving at 38 miles an hour, as everyone knows, will not affect anyone's rate of aging.
"However, slowing light can certainly help our understanding of the bizarre state of matter of a Bose-Einstein condensate," Hau points out.
As for the rest, you are simply spreading a common misconception about the implications of quantum entanglement and non-locality. Unfortunately, it is easy to see that is not true of matter at the scales we all perceive as reality. I don't need to tell a person what they will see at a locale for the observer to see it. I can simply ask a number of people to go to the same coordinates and ask them to record what they see when looking in a certain direction. While there may be some that add/subtract some details, if I ask them to look toward a mountain . . . they will all see the mountain. Throwing the "What the bleep do we Know" version of quantum physics and the psuedo-science behind "nothing is real and matter is generated by the observation" into the well. You can look at this principle in the same way that Newtonian physics isn't "wrong", but it certainly doesn't apply to the Cosmos where Relativity reigns.
In the media and popular science, quantum nonlocality is often portrayed as being equivalent to entanglement. While it is true that a bipartite quantum state must be entangled in order for it to produce nonlocal correlations, there exist entangled states which do not produce such correlations. A well-known example of this is constituted by a subset of Werner states that are entangled but whose correlations can always be described using local hidden variables.[18] On the other hand, reasonably simple examples of Bell inequalities have been found for which the quantum state giving the largest violation is never a maximally entangled state, showing that entanglement is, in some sense, not even proportional to nonlocality.[25][26][27]
In short, entanglement of a two-party state is necessary but not sufficient for that state to be nonlocal. It is important to recognise that entanglement is more commonly viewed as an algebraic concept, noted for being a precedent to nonlocality as well as quantum teleportation and superdense coding, whereas nonlocality is interpreted according to experimental statistics and is much more involved with the foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Too many people are quick to jump on the philosophical implications of quantum theory, even though they do not show any real world function or evidence. But hey . . . sounds sci-fi-y and cool . . . so what the hell.
Quantum . . . physics of the small
Relative . . . physics of the large
Newtonian . . . physics under conditions present on Earth . . . which equals reality
They do not need to all "agree" and not all things true of one theory are true of the others when in their natural state of observance.
originally posted by: Mon1k3r
When you consider the speed of light to be absolute, do not consider the light itself. The speed of sound is determined by the medium through which the sound wave travels. For example, the speed of sound is greater at sea level than it is a 30,000 feet because the medium (atmosphere) is more dense. In water, the speed of sound is greater still, because water is much more dense than atmosphere.
The speed of light is what it is because of the medium through which the light wave travels. Bring the flames, mainstream science people!
originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: skunkape23
The speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT no matter what they tell you,They can slow light down to 38 miles per hour in the lab and have heard they now have stationary photons.Even more all sub-atomic particles are speeding in many times faster than light and forming all atoms and then break apart and fly off faster than light again at such a high frequency that they cant measure it because there instruments are doing it also. So nothing is solid, nothing is real and matter is being generated on demand for the observer.
originally posted by: Rob48
originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: skunkape23
The speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT no matter what they tell you,They can slow light down to 38 miles per hour in the lab and have heard they now have stationary photons.Even more all sub-atomic particles are speeding in many times faster than light and forming all atoms and then break apart and fly off faster than light again at such a high frequency that they cant measure it because there instruments are doing it also. So nothing is solid, nothing is real and matter is being generated on demand for the observer.
Nobody claims the speed of light is constant. Ever heard of refraction? That is caused by the speed of light changing as it goes from one medium to another, eg from air to glass or water.
Particles can travel faster than the speed of light in, say, water, because light travels slower if it is not in a vacuum: look up Cherenkov radiation for a neat illustration of that.
What is constant is the speed of light IN A VACUUM, and nothing can exceed that.
I don't know about approaching, because I'm not sure if we've made much progress on a unified field theory, or a theory of quantum gravity, since Einstein tried to create a unified field theory last century. However it's nearly universally agreed that more theory is needed as you suggest. It's unclear if string theory will provide anything useful but that's another possibility.
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
we are approaching an era where extreme exceptions to relativity will be described by a new set of equations and rules.
Sounds like you're talking about the Hartman effect, but if not please cite the research you're talking about. What appeared on the other side of the barrier aren't real photons, they are only virtual photons, so it's not really appropriate to count the gap in the velocity calculation.
for example there are quantum two slit experiments where photons are forced to quantum tunnel in one arm of the experiment. the photons that tunnel travel faster than the photons that do not tunnel. they are estimated at 1.6 times the speed of light in a vacuum if i recall the literature properly.
I can cite other research claiming superluminal velocities but it's never the photon that's superluminal, it's a waveform like phase velocities or group velocities.
an analysis by Herbert Winful suggests that the Hartman effect cannot actually be used to violate relativity by transmitting signals faster than the c, because the tunnelling time "should not be linked to a velocity since evanescent waves do not propagate". Winful means by this that the photons crossing the barrier are virtual photons, only existing in the interactions and could not be propagated into the outside world.
this was several years ago. i'd play hell trying to find the exact cite now. but my memory says that the tunneling photon beam arrived 1.6 times faster than the unobstructed beam.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't know about approaching, because I'm not sure if we've made much progress on a unified field theory, or a theory of quantum gravity, since Einstein tried to create a unified field theory last century. However it's nearly universally agreed that more theory is needed as you suggest. It's unclear if string theory will provide anything useful but that's another possibility.
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
we are approaching an era where extreme exceptions to relativity will be described by a new set of equations and rules.
Sounds like you're talking about the Hartman effect, but if not please cite the research you're talking about. What appeared on the other side of the barrier aren't real photons, they are only virtual photons, so it's not really appropriate to count the gap in the velocity calculation.
for example there are quantum two slit experiments where photons are forced to quantum tunnel in one arm of the experiment. the photons that tunnel travel faster than the photons that do not tunnel. they are estimated at 1.6 times the speed of light in a vacuum if i recall the literature properly.
Hartman Effect
I can cite other research claiming superluminal velocities but it's never the photon that's superluminal, it's a waveform like phase velocities or group velocities.
an analysis by Herbert Winful suggests that the Hartman effect cannot actually be used to violate relativity by transmitting signals faster than the c, because the tunnelling time "should not be linked to a velocity since evanescent waves do not propagate". Winful means by this that the photons crossing the barrier are virtual photons, only existing in the interactions and could not be propagated into the outside world.