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 Cosmic4life
I did say barely approaches....regards black holes.
Another thing about black holes of course is that photons are unable to escape, yet radiation is able to evaporate and escape in great fountains from the poles, this infers the black hole is a toroid that is spinning faster than a neutron star, it further infers that mass/gravity is related to rotational momentum.
Photons have no mass because they have no rotational momentum hence they travel in straight lines, would it be too far fetched to suggest that if we could stop the rotation of atoms/ electron shells and particles that we may get close to the reduction of inertial mass as well as rest mass ?
They are looking for the answer to one of the great questions in astrophysics. We know that there are really really high energy particles hitting the Earth all the time from outer space. We would really like to know where they are coming from. The aim of ANITA (Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna) is to address this by looking for neutrinos.
In their first flight, though, they found something else
Yes of course that's related, I addressed the energetic cosmic rays in the OP, which I'm not sure if you read.
Originally posted by newyorkee
I thought this was realted....my understanding is a little limited in this.,....but I think is was interesting and it came to mind when reading the original post
Originally posted by Aim64C
I've never understood why "FTL" represents a causality problem.
This is how faster than light signals allow the bomb to detonate before you even push the detonator.
Also, any general technical means of sending signals faster than light would permit information to be sent into the originator's own past. In the diagram, an observer at O in the x-ct-system sends a message moving faster than light to A. At A it is received by another observer, moving so as to be in the x'-ct'-system, who sends it back, again faster than light by the same technology, arriving at B. But B is in the past relative to O.
As this link explains, let's say you have a radio transmitter with a firing button, and a radio receiver attached to a bomb.
If instead of using radio waves, you used a neutrino generator and the neutrinos traveled at twice light speed, and the bomb was hooked up to a neutrino detector, then the bomb could explode before you actually push the detonater button to make it explode.
If you aren't familiar with space-time diagrams, it might be a little hard to understand why, but perhaps you should study those before you dismiss the causality concept?
Quantum mechanics offers the explanation. Objects assume a position based upon their energy states. This is a very simple principle, and I am likely going to be told I am abusing it, to some degree or another - but it is this same principle that allows Neutrinos (and other particles fired at high energies) to pass through objects virtually unhindered.
I think your issue is due to a lack of understanding based on your arguments here. I mentioned you should study space-time diagrams and you're giving me arguments about gravity.
Originally posted by Aim64C
While I appreciate you attempting to be helpful - I have studied them; and my issue with it, while seemingly naive, is not due to a lack of familiarity.
I'm very familiar with the sentiment.
However, sending a signal from one refrigerator to a colder refrigerator (which echoes the signal) does not result in a causality violation. According to chemical clocks; yes. According to electronic clocks; no. According to reality; no.
There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that gravity has any additional effect other than slowing the rate of activity. Any more than there is reason to suspect that putting chicken in the refrigerator can lead to a situation where a chicken kills itself.
I think your issue is due to a lack of understanding based on your arguments here. I mentioned you should study space-time diagrams and you're giving me arguments about gravity.
If special relativity is correct, and a lot of evidence suggests it is, then space time diagrams can show a causality violation with FTL. In order to dismiss this causality violation you have to dismiss special relativity.
And gravity isn't even a part of special relativity so you don't understand this topic nearly as well as you think you do. But I'm pretty impressed with most of your other posts on ATS, and you're a smart person. You just are missing the boat on this one issue by talking about gravity on a special relativity topic. Gravity has nothing to do with special relativity.
What precedent is there that gravitational field density (and velocity, as it is derived) alters -time-?
None.
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Everything in the universe has a unique energy state, lets say an atom, if said atom changes to another state which happens to be the same as an atom on the other side of the universe then that atom will also change, in effect all atoms in the universe are constantly switching to maintain uniqueness, they are doing this instantaneously, clearly a mechanism FTL is in operation.
You're basically just confirming what I said.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Taking the bomb issue - where the weapon explodes before another frame of reference is able to observe the push of the button; if that same observer were to then 'leap' to the button-pusher, they would find themselves there, well after the button had been pushed (despite their lack of observing it).
If special relativity is correct, and a lot of evidence suggests it is, then space time diagrams can show a causality violation with FTL. In order to dismiss this causality violation you have to dismiss special relativity.
Technically it's traveling AT the speed of light that seems to cause the problems like infinite mass, in relativity. But yes, I think you have a point there.
Originally posted by DJW001
In sum, there is no reason to believe that things cannot travel faster than light, provided that it is possible to travel "backwards" in time. Objecting to this possibility based on concepts like causality is a philosophical objection. Personally, I like causality but it would be arrogant of me to assume that Nature holds the same opinion.
Of course your comment raises a question about faster than light neutrinos: If they are traveling faster than light, what are the implications for traveling back in time? Personally I'm not trying to solve that problem until the FTL results are experimentally well confirmed. But I suspect there are people thinking about it!
Erm it's called the Pauli Exclusion principle.
I like that idea, did you read that somewhere or did you just come up with that yourself? It sounds far less wacky to me than Poplowski's paper about us living inside a black hole! It's at least worth testing. I'd love to know who the "ghosts" are that perpetrate the "spooky action at a distance" Could they be tachyons? Until we understand the mechanism better, I sure wouldn't rule it out, in fact I like the idea.
Originally posted by DJW001
This led me to wonder if perhaps quantum entanglement is mediated by superluminal particles of some sort. Changing the state of one entangled particle emits a, well, lets call it a tachyquark, that travels through space backwards in time at a velocity proportional to the distance between the entangled particles.
You mean sort of a variation of the Quantum eraser experiment?
Maybe my brain is starting to melt, but I wonder if one could devise some manner of beam splitting experiment... of course, you would need to observe the results before you perform the experiment. (Take that, Schrodinger's cat!)
I'm not restricting this thread topic to just neutrinos. Anything related to other faster than light particles, and related implications on existing theories, or new theories related to faster than light particles is on topic here. So your tachyon proposal is quite on topic here, if I'm allowed to say what's on topic in my own thread, which I think I am.
Needless to say, this has nothing to do with the mystery of the faster than light neutrino. I'm still going with experimental error on that one.