Quantum interaction: 10,000 times faster than light

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Fuzzy thinking galore.


sorry if im not as precise as the thread deserves


The Sun does not move with respect to the Earth. The phrase "Where the Sun was" is meaningless in this context. The Sun is where it is, from our perspective, constantly.


well its about 2 arc seconds difference (approx) from where the sun appairs to be (apparent position)
to where the sun actually is (actual position) ie it takes 8 mins for the light to reach us and in that time the sun has moved by approx 2 arc seconds.

if we were attracted to where the sun looked to be (appairent position) we would slowly lose orbit,
if we are attracted to where the sun was (actual position) we would have a steady orbit




Sure, the Sun moves through the galaxy at a constant rate. But the Earth moves with it, at exactly the same rate.


stable orbit?


Hence, your thought experiment is actually a flight of fancy.

i reserve the right to be wrong (if shown) and the right to flights of fancy
im not perfect much



Recent investigations have supported previous measurements of gravity propagating at approximately the speed of light:


By conducting six observations of total and annular solar eclipses, as well as Earth tides, a team headed by Tang Keyun, a researcher with the Institute of Geology and Geophysics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), found that the Newtonian Earth tide formula includes a factor related to the propagation of gravity.

“Earth tide” refers to a small change in the Earth’s surface caused by the gravity of the moon and sun.


i must admit to being a bit dubious to any experiment that uses annular solar eclipses in there methodology
we truly do not understand the interaction of gravity at the time of eclipse.


Based on the data, the team, with the participation of the China Earthquake Administration and the University of the CAS, found that gravitational force released from the sun and gravitational force recorded at ground stations on Earth did not travel at the same speed, with the time difference exactly the same as the time it takes for light to travel from the sun to observation stations on Earth.


during an annular eclipse? because there could be other explanations for the out come of that experiment that have not been addressed


[…] By applying the new data to the propagation equation of gravity, the team found that the speed of gravity is about 0.93 to 1.05 times the speed of light with a relative error of about 5 percent, providing the first set of strong evidence showing that gravity travels at the speed of light.

Source: chinadigitaltimes.net... ts-find-evidence-for-speed-of-gravity/

Harte


it is an interesting experiment, and i should not criticize its findings,
i am just saying there is more to eclipses than we currently recognise and some strange effects are seen during these events.

this makes data from these events "less palatable"

xploder




posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
"10,000 times faster than light" isn't a statement that should be thrown around lightly...


superluminal observations have been explained away using GR,

but the question remains for me,
are we really explaining what we see, or changing the interpretation of what we see to fit in with our SR theories,
some people have claimed that superluminal observations actually prove part of GR.

but are we just bending the observation to fit the theory?

xploder



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by winofiend
It's a thought experiment to ponder if the sun were to blink out, how things would happen. I don't really agree that it would take 8 minutes for gravity to release. I would think it would release instantly, but the light would still take 8 minutes to reach us, plus the time added as we drift away.

xploder





You are both wrong.

My recent thread Super Slo Mo Slinky Demonstrates Why a Pole Push Won't Go Faster Than Light. demonstrates this perfectly.

The earth would well and truly stay in 'orbit' for 8 minutes even if the sun were to totally pop out of existence. The reason is that the information about this localized change has to propagate through the 'aether'.

It's a common early thought problem for the physics interested.

Keep contemplating thought


Korg.

edit on 31-3-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Was the laser beam directed in that circle? or was the direction of the beam perpendicular to our computer screen, as a point straight through the center of this ring of light?


i cant answer you question,
but i can guess,
if the circle of electrons was not a circle the super position would be broken

which means we are properly looking down at the centre



xploder
edit on 31/3/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I believe that gravity is an observed interaction between Higgs-Boson particle (wave) and electron (particle/wave) density (or a lack thereof).

Hopefully, we'll see soon.
edit on 31-3-2013 by ArcAngel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   


You are both wrong.

My recent thread Super Slo Mo Slinky Demonstrates Why a Pole Push Won't Go Faster Than Light. demonstrates this perfectly.

The earth would well and truly stay in 'orbit' for 8 minutes even if the sun were to totally pop out of existence. The reason is that the information about this localized change has to propagate through the 'aether'.

It's a common early thought problem for the physics interested.

Keep contemplating thought


Korg.

edit on 31-3-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)


ill take a read,
its interesting to see intuition vs physics when thinking about this problem



thanks

xploder



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArcAngel
I believe that gravity is an observed interaction between Higgs-Boson particle (wave) and electron (particle/wave) density (or a lack thereof).

Hopefully, we'll see soon.
edit on 31-3-2013 by ArcAngel because: (no reason given)


there looks to be different types of interactions that conform to the squared distance rule,
as an example some asteroids have smaller asteroids orbit them,

but the mass of the asteriod being orbited cannot explain the orbit of the second asteroid



the droplets of water look to be acting if effected by gravity,
but it is different charge forces that cause the effect.

there may be different effects at play between the sun and earth
the earth and the moon
asteroids and the earth ect.

if they all followed the square distance rule it would make finding their individual causes much more difficult.

xploder



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
And this affects humanity how?

Nice to know but I have more pressing matters in my lifetime.

Unless of course the sun suddenly disappears as you mentioned in which case ATS will be ablaze with conspiracy theorists....for at least 8 minutes
edit on 31-3-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
And this affects humanity how?

Nice to know but I have more pressing matters in my lifetime.

Unless of course the sun suddenly disappears as you mentioned in which case ATS will be ablaze with conspiracy theorists....for at least 8 minutes
edit on 31-3-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)


sometimes challenging age old thinking can cause a change in the way we view the universe,
in this case approaching the subject of gravity and the finite speed of light.

there are many situations were the speed of light has a direct effect on our future.
if there was something shown to be 10,000 times the speed of light,
suddenly there would be no reason why we couldn't explore the galaxy instead of the solar system

im not saying we are going to solve the problem here and now,
but pointing out stuff to people can lead them to ask really creative questions,
or members can give important insight to the problem

not every thing is imediatly obvious

xploder



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by pacifier2012

there are many situations were the speed of light has a direct effect on our future.
if there was something shown to be 10,000 times the speed of light,
suddenly there would be no reason why we couldn't explore the galaxy instead of the solar system

im not saying we are going to solve the problem here and now,
but pointing out stuff to people can lead them to ask really creative questions,
or members can give important insight to the problem

not every thing is imediatly obvious

xploder




Xploder is quite right, Cause and Effect is not a law discovery always adheres to. Often we discover things that appear to have no bearing on anything current, and maybe by absolute chance.

But without these 'leaps' of knowledge we would still be using sticks and stones I venture.

Korg.
edit on 31-3-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
I don't think we'll ever really understand the weak force of gravity.

This is one topic that is so open ended in my mind it is easy to get lost in the what ifs... I wish I'd studied more as a youth. But then, I wonder if I would find it all so fascinating if I had. I know 99.99999% of the things I ponder are ignorance blessed with curiosity, so I can only ever wonder..


I did university physics, read research papers, and what you described in your post is as much as physicists know ... Keplers laws of motion, satellites in orbit, the gravitation equation F = m1 x m2 / d^2 ... that's as much as we know. We still don't have conclusive proof that the Higgs boson exists. But it is enough to send rockets into space and land robots on Mars and out of the solar system.

From our knowledge of magnetic field equations, we built microphones, speakers, motors, disk drives, CRT screens, MRI scanners, electric cars, aeroplanes and elevators. What could we do if knew exactly what gravity was?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stormcell

Originally posted by winofiend
I don't think we'll ever really understand the weak force of gravity.

This is one topic that is so open ended in my mind it is easy to get lost in the what ifs... I wish I'd studied more as a youth. But then, I wonder if I would find it all so fascinating if I had. I know 99.99999% of the things I ponder are ignorance blessed with curiosity, so I can only ever wonder..


I did university physics, read research papers, and what you described in your post is as much as physicists know ... Keplers laws of motion, satellites in orbit, the gravitation equation F = m1 x m2 / d^2 ... that's as much as we know. We still don't have conclusive proof that the Higgs boson exists. But it is enough to send rockets into space and land robots on Mars and out of the solar system.

From our knowledge of magnetic field equations, we built microphones, speakers, motors, disk drives, CRT screens, MRI scanners, electric cars, aeroplanes and elevators. What could we do if knew exactly what gravity was?


We saying that is all we know I think is a little too strong for my liking. There are many things we know we don't know but there are also many things we know but can't test... such as Quantum Gravity.

My view is that eventually we will find that it is the very fabric of space-time itself that matter is made from and not suspended within it. Should this prove to be a correct description of reality then the so called 'spooky action at a distance' becomes easy to explain. If say entangled particles are not actually separated at all at the most fundamental levels of reality.

The problem physics has is that we only ever get a small glimpse of the truth, and not the whole picture, so saying we know anything with any certainty is also foolish. I am as you may realize against the established stick to the standard model at all costs type of guy.

Korg.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
There are two things that I find very strange about quantum mechanics, and this after years of study of the technical details and especially the mathematical formalism:

1. Quantum mechanics forces one into making a choice between determinism and locality. That is, if you want a theory with nice local interactions, finite signal speeds, etc., then you have to give up the idea that physical quantities are deterministic. Or, if you want a theory that has nice deterministic features, e.g., the electron has a momentum even if we don't measure it, then you have to give up on locality. You can't have both. Most physicists seem to prefer locality. But this creates a problem:

2. Quantum mechanics seems to rob us of a coherent ontology, without providing or even hinting at a suitable replacement.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Spectral Norm
 


If you want coherent ontology, you could tell yourself that the measurement of quantum causes erroneous propagation. It would throw physicists into the ilk of charlatans, but it would make more sense, at least.

e.g. Think of it like picking up a telephone to eavesdrop vrs picking up a telephone, screaming HEY, and then listening to what the conversation becomes. Is the later not a great example of what happens when you attempt to measure the quantum? Do you think they do not know this? Hmmm; conspiracy!?

No, but seriously, I gave you a star for your points of fact - the scientific world's incoherent ontology is very incoherent.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


10,000 times the speed of light?

So, what did this researcher use to verify this velocity?

This is what pisses me off about "science" now days. It's even less than religion as far as verification is concerned.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectral Norm
There are two things that I find very strange about quantum mechanics, and this after years of study of the technical details and especially the mathematical formalism:

1. Quantum mechanics forces one into making a choice between determinism and locality. That is, if you want a theory with nice local interactions, finite signal speeds, etc., then you have to give up the idea that physical quantities are deterministic. Or, if you want a theory that has nice deterministic features, e.g., the electron has a momentum even if we don't measure it, then you have to give up on locality. You can't have both. Most physicists seem to prefer locality. But this creates a problem:


I think it has to do with the massive amounts of bits of information or particles in every square cm of the universe, and these all have their own masses, plus physical details like velocity and angular momentum, and these values flux minutely or greatly every pico second and planks length. And they are all traveling through space and time, though at relatively different velocities, yet there has arisen a macro stability, an upper bound of potential things the lesser parts can interact to create, on a major macro scale that is prevalent, galaxies, stars, planets, on a micro scale that is seen with the consistent formulation of atoms, and then somewhere in the middle chemistry and biology get to be really complex.

But yea, I think the only reason the universe cant have deterministic features, is because it is computing using the physical variables in real time, and every bit has to respond to every other bit at every moment, and they do this at different speeds, so they move every which way, and it is really a bit of chaos at that level. But at the same time, I will say that it is deterministic because I am under the impression that only consciousness can make a choice. That means that all inanimate material, particles, everything, is determined to do exactly what it is doing at exactly every moment by everything else that can physically effect it in its local area, since the conditions of the pre big bang/big bang.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
nothing can travel faster than light, was a saying for years and many still do say that but

This is a false-color image of a laser beam showing a superposition of entangled photons spinning in opposite directions.



How fast do quantum interactions happen? Faster than light, 10,000 times faster.
That's what a team of physicists led by Juan Yin at the University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai found in an experiment involving entangled photons, or photons that remain intimately connected, even when separated by vast distances.They wanted to see what would happen if you tried assigning a speed to what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance."


science.nbcnews.com...

so nothing can travel faster than light, but some things "at a distance" can influence each other at speeds 10,000 times the speed of light. whats going on?

which is interesting because a scientist named Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern (RIP)
calculated that gravity acted at a distance, 10,000 times faster than light.

xploder


Welcome to the jungle. Worlds are like Tarzan: one vine breaks, then Tarzan grabs another entangled vine nearby and keeps swinging.

The picture looks like a Luo Pan, or the compass used in Feng Shui. Lots of little perturbations. Maybe it is a neighbor of Sandalphon named a Metatron, full of eyes round about.

What you have are lots of needle eyes, each one a door to another universe. Gateways to parallel worlds. The world on the right, you might be a lawyer, and on the left, you might be a nuclear physicist. Some worlds do not have life, but they are within reach.

Actually these may be open ports in electron shells. They remind me of the light signature of radioactive things, only less black space in between each little nugget of energy.

The lights are only as lit as there is oil in the lamp. Maybe there is a worldline density of 10k there, it is not the same everywhere, especially when you get to the dark. What a synchronicity, I have a book about the I Ching sitting next to me. Old ideas become new again.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Relativists always back peddle when some new discovery proves einstein wrong...

They are like the Climate change Fundamentalists.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Spectral Norm
 



2. Quantum mechanics seems to rob us of a coherent ontology, without providing or even hinting at a suitable replacement.


you bring up a good point,
whats the point in following ideas that solve a paradox with an answer that causes more paradoxes than the original one?

xploder



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by XPLodER
 


10,000 times the speed of light?

So, what did this researcher use to verify this velocity?

This is what pisses me off about "science" now days. It's even less than religion as far as verification is concerned.


as i understand it the author used a laser arrangement to measure and record (image) the picture in the op,
now i would think that to be published that the paper included peer reviewed procedures followed by a mathmatical conclusion.

xploder





top topics
 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join