It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"A new suggests that if geostationary satellites are thick enough around an alien world, they could be spotted with telescopes already hunting for undiscovered planets.
Sufficient material orbiting a exoplanet causes a small dip in starlight before and after the body of the world makes its transit. Scientists have used this method to discover rings around planets outside the solar system and even around distant solar system bodies.
Yes quantum entanglement is well established and yes there are sources saying something about correlations being superluminal, but that hasn't been proven. The superluminal claim is based on the assumption of a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics (such as the Copenhagen interpretation taught in textbooks), but there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics such as Everett (aka "many worlds") in which the results of entanglement experiments are not evidence of anything superluminal, but are considered entirely local (meaning not faster than light). So far, nobody has devised a way of knowing which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct.
originally posted by: ColinT
> $10 million in NASA funding for the next two years "to search for technosignatures, such as radio transmissions
The phenomenon of quantum entanglement is now well establlished, and proves that instantaneous - or at least super-luminal - interaction is real.
Q12 Is many-worlds a local theory?
The simplest way to see that the many-worlds metatheory is a local theory is to note that it requires that the wavefunction obey some relativistic wave equation, the exact form of which is currently unknown, but which is presumed to be locally Lorentz invariant at all times and everywhere. This is equivalent to imposing the requirement that locality is enforced at all times and everywhere. Ergo many-worlds is a local theory.
I think his sample was biased because in the wider community I think there aren't as many physicists who have given a lot of thought to the various interpretations...and the Copenhagen interpretation is the textbook standard so you'll find a lot more support for that in a broader survey, but still I think everyone participating in the survey will admit they are just giving their own opinion and nobody has ever proven which interpretation is correct.
Q1 Who believes in many-worlds?
"Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" and gives the following response breakdown [T].
1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58%
2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18%
3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13%
4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11%
Amongst the "Yes, I think MWI is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman.
Maybe an advanced civilization has figured out the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, but we haven't.
Any advanced civilization would not only be well aware of this, but would long ago have made use of it for interstellar communications.
Scientists don't claim to have all the answers, and they'll tell you that.
originally posted by: ColinT
> Maybe an advanced civilization has figured out the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, but we haven't.
Maybe advanced civilizations have done away with QM entirely:
What about GPS? Without an understanding of GR we wouldn't have that, and that's of practical benefit to mankind. Maybe someday a better theory will replace GR but it will have to explain why GR made so many accurate predictions just as GR had to explain why Newtonian mechanics made so many accurate predictions, which was because GR simplified to Newtonian mechanics in the limited case.
In spite of the enormous amounts of time, money and effort expended in developing GR, it has yielded nothing whatever of practical benefit to Mankind. Even worse, it has fostered a complete misunderstanding of what gravity and inertia truly are. It has obviously passed its 'use-by date' and is well overdue for replacement.
originally posted by: Archivalist
Skeptics, walk down the lane of possibility for a moment. This is a diagram of the orbit path of oumuamua .
Notice anything odd?
Which planet does oumuamua approach at closest distance?
How far is oumuamua from the other planets in the diagram?
If this is some type of scout.
We are likely to see whatever it reports back to... eventually. It's probably considerations like this, that are forcing our current mad dash to get space tech rolling.