Quantum interaction: 10,000 times faster than light

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I dont like holographic theory, or at least what I understand of it. From what I understand of it, all you need to describe a spherical area/volume is the information of the 2d surface of the sphere? To me that makes no sense and is wrong. If I had a basketball full of random things, how would holographic principle work to describe the contents of the inside of the basketball just by using the details of the surface?




posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jubosh
Hi guys was reading your thread found it very interesting, I'm not a professor or anything and my limited quantum physics skills my warrant me being Flamed here for this post, but anyway here my thoughts.


im not a professor either, and no one should flame you for contributing here



almost all of ya agreed that gravity is beyond 3 dimensions. i think time was the 4rth, the other 6 don't matter here i assume, but if this is true then there no reason for gravity to be slower then light because it supersedes time there for can not be measured by time you can't say gravity is this fast, because it's not a speed it's a constant, think about trying to view the 3rd from the 2nd you'd only see the one plane there for there is not way to actually measure the 3rd using standard definition of your dimension, probably why gravity is so confusing.Even with the "Cosmic speed limit" that still 3 dimensions if gravity exists in the 4rth that there no reason for time to even matter for exists across time there for being relatively instant in it "speed"


time is a measure of cycles per second, derived by the motion of the earth in relation to the sun,
not a physical dimension (imho)


1st dimension a thread on your bed 2nd is the top of your bed or the sheets the Mattress is the 3rd dimension, but your Blankets are the 4rth they wrap around everything and exist covering the whole bed, regardless of where you lay, you don't affect the blankets you are under them,

anyway i was pretty much just spouting my mind so feel free to prove me wrong, but it's just a thought,


the bed analogy lacks motion and angular momentum, but i get what you are saying

i guess you are in the 8 min camp then?

xploder



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by XPLodER
 



i dont think this outcome proves anyone wrong,
more like it points to a quantum theory of gravity,


FTL information transfer?

This isn't forbidden by General Relativity?


you are right that FTL "anything" violates General Relativity
but people have a knee jerk reaction to anyone saying that out loud,

i would rather discuss it on its merits but the purists would be offended



xploder



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



No, the Earth has rotated by about 2 arc seconds. The Sun has not moved.


you are looking at the problem from earth, relative to the sun we move 2 arc seconds,
if you were on the sun the earth would move more than 2 arc seconds

the sun moves while we move around it.

the relative motion of the sun is not noticed from earth, but it is moving, the sun is not stationary

xploder



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I dont like holographic theory, or at least what I understand of it. From what I understand of it, all you need to describe a spherical area/volume is the information of the 2d surface of the sphere? To me that makes no sense and is wrong. If I had a basketball full of random things, how would holographic principle work to describe the contents of the inside of the basketball just by using the details of the surface?


you run into the same problem when you try to derive the big bang from the after glow of the big bang,

using the 2d sphere of the after glow to predict what is contained runs into the same problems you point out.


without some "source field" underlying everything the holographic theory falls over,

a source field is similar to aether

xploder



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Harte
 



No, the Earth has rotated by about 2 arc seconds. The Sun has not moved.


you are looking at the problem from earth, relative to the sun we move 2 arc seconds,
if you were on the sun the earth would move more than 2 arc seconds

the sun moves while we move around it.

the relative motion of the sun is not noticed from earth, but it is moving, the sun is not stationary

xploder

The Sun is stationary relative to the Earth.

Both, as I said earlier, move through the galaxy. But both are following exactly the same vector.

From Earth's perspective, the Sun does not move at all.

Obviously, there is movement on and in the Sun. But the Sun's center basically stays in the same place, as it is viewed from Earth.

This is simply fact. You don't have to like it. It is no less true for that, though.

Harte



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Interesting that you brought up Tom van Flandern. I worked with him back in the 90's. He was part of a group investigating some sort of relativistic corrections to global positioning. I was a student doing computing support for that group. My own studies at the time were along the lines of semi-classical quantum gravity, in particular an investigation of particle production induced by the dynamics of spacetime curvature. Tom was a pretty sharp guy with celestial mechanics, but something of an odd bird.

I really have trouble with the instrumentalist approach to quantum mechanics, or what N. David Mermin likes to call the "shut up and calculate" approach. After all, what does it mean if reality is nothing more that a collection of mathematical symbols, which are not even necessarily unique?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



The Sun is stationary relative to the Earth.

in a single frame of reference yes,
as soon as you add another frame of reference, both are moving in relation to one another,
and from a truly stationary point starting between the sun and the earth,
another reference frame that sees the other two reference frames moving away at the same speed as each other,
at the same speed.
it becomes "relative" to the reference frame you perceive your view of the system.



Both, as I said earlier, move through the galaxy. But both are following exactly the same vector.


on average across the whole system they are (exterior reference frame)
individualize there vectors and they compile into a system of reference frames that travel "relative" to each other,


From Earth's perspective, the Sun does not move at all.

but you admit the sun is moving, even if this motion is not "apparent" from the earth's perspective (reference frame)


Obviously, there is movement on and in the Sun. But the Sun's center basically stays in the same place, as it is viewed from Earth.


relative to the rest of the galaxy (at rest reference frame) the sun is moving and the planets are moving in "relation" to the vector of the suns motion,

so it depends on where you are viewing the system (frame of reference)




This is simply fact. You don't have to like it. It is no less true for that, though.


actually it is an earth centric view of the solar system you are using,
everything in your example is referenced from earth,

imagine your on the surface of the sun, (i know hot)
in 8 mins would the earth "change its location" relative to your position?

or would the rotation of the sun and the orbit of the earth in relation to one another allow for a measurement of change of position in arc seconds?

everything can have a separate reference frame (relative to each other) "Einstein" and separate definitions of the passage of time
but when you try to add an "exterior stationary frame of reference", all of the individual relative frames have a universal"time of frame reference" or measure of time difference using time to again remeasure time.

this causes a paradox where each "clock" in each frame can measure the passage of time differently from each other, (time differential)

but add a new frame of reference, exterior and stationary to the system,
and you can measure the measurement of time as recorded by each reference frame.

this is like trying to measure a clock with other clocks that all run at different rates,
you can average them to get "time" but you cant set a measure of time to the "universal" clock.


this causes all sorts of weird paradoxes when looking at motion and time from a relativistic point of view.

xploder









Harte
edit on 1/4/13 by XPLodER because: bracket fix



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectral Norm
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Interesting that you brought up Tom van Flandern. I worked with him back in the 90's. He was part of a group investigating some sort of relativistic corrections to global positioning. I was a student doing computing support for that group. My own studies at the time were along the lines of semi-classical quantum gravity, in particular an investigation of particle production induced by the dynamics of spacetime curvature. Tom was a pretty sharp guy with celestial mechanics, but something of an odd bird.


i think he is a very cleaver guy (RIP) and some of the questions he has postulated still have not been answered
he has forced me into reconsidering some basic assumptions i held about gravity

GPS still uses an earth centric "universal time" reference clock, ( i have not heard otherwise) is this still true?


I really have trouble with the instrumentalist approach to quantum mechanics, or what N. David Mermin likes to call the "shut up and calculate" approach. After all, what does it mean if reality is nothing more that a collection of mathematical symbols, which are not even necessarily unique?


in my opinion experiments should not give way to a purely mathematical abstraction of observation.
in purely mathematical abstractions a simple compounded error can propagate through everything subsequently calculated.

ie if our model has incorrect variables the outcome may bear little resemblance to actual observations, yet compute perfectly.

in observations we might not understand what we are seeing, but its hard to deny its happening.

an interesting idea is to test ground level time differentials as a reference frame, using the internet to calculate the "offset" with the GPS grid.

some of the new transport layer improvements to the internet protocols would enable "real time" agreement on the passage of time against a "universal reference clock" allowing for a ground level vs satalite level comparison of the "offsets" at each distence

might provide some interesting data


xploder

edit on 1/4/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Good thread


I read recently that the 2004 tsunami was caused by a gravity wave moving faster than the gamma ray bursts that they observed afterwards...Link


Experiments carried out by Eugene Podkletnov show that a shock front outburst produces a longitudinal gravitational wave that travels forward with the burst. He has found that this gravity wave pulse has a speed in excess of 64 times the speed of light (personal communication).

Link to experiment

What is your take on that? kinda fits in with your thread...

edit on 1/4/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: observerved ?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theflyingweldsman
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Good thread


I read recently that the 2004 tsunami was caused by a gravity wave moving faster than the gamma ray bursts that they observed afterwards...Link


Experiments carried out by Eugene Podkletnov show that a shock front outburst produces a longitudinal gravitational wave that travels forward with the burst. He has found that this gravity wave pulse has a speed in excess of 64 times the speed of light (personal communication).

Link to experiment

What is your take on that? kinda fits in with your thread...

edit on 1/4/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: observerved ?


its an interesting subject,
sumperluminal motion has been seen in a number of places,
each time it has been explained as an artefact of relativistic reference frames conflicting with each other (they can in GR/SR)

if this was a co-incidence then there is not much to discuss,
but this is a conspiracy sight so ill tackle the problem an see what i think is going on,

i image a gravity wave would cause a curvature or shock front that precedes the gamma ray burst,
the gravity wave would distort light as seen through the shock front, but as the wave front is travelling faster than light you would not see the gamma ray burst until after the shock front had subsided,

ok i see two options,

1, the gravity wave actually increases the perceived strength of the gamma ray (think gravitational lensing) but with a moving "lens"

2,the gravity wave shock front "hides" the light from our view till after the gravity wave has passed,

very interesting either way though, if there is a correlation between the two events

xploder



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I must confess that I am no expert on the technical details of GPS, but my understanding of the situation at the time was something like this: It is a well known result of general relativity that clocks in differing gravitational fields run at different rates. So, in GPS, you have these clocks in orbit on GPS satellites running at different rates than the ones on the surface of the earth. It was the opinion of the principal investigator of the group I worked for that this effect was modeled incorrectly in GPS. So, the Air Force gave the guy a bunch of grant money to prove that, because they wanted (and eventually got, as I understand it) a GPS system with subcentimeter accuracy.

And that pretty much exhausts my knowledge of the subject,



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
The speed of light is not constant. The definition does not always apply either, things can happen at the same instant far apart. Even Einstein excluded some things from his theories, which means the theories are misleading, applying only under certain situations.


Yes...I saw this somewhere the other day...can't put my finger on where though...I never personally believed that light was the fastest thing in the universe anyway...

E=UNPROVEN

Sorry Einstein...I still love ya, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


When we see a meteor explode, like in Russia recently, the light waves traveled faster than the shockwaves because gravity is buffered by the density of our atmosphere.

Without an atmosphere, would a shockwave as an expression of explosive gravitational force travel faster than light because it ripples the fabric of spacetime, rather than light which has to travel over the ripples?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont like holographic theory, or at least what I understand of it.


The holographic theory is just trying to explain the universe in terms of how our brains pervcieve reality.

It's not hocus pocus, It makes sense in the context of all that we see being interference patterns in a sea of photons.

Which is all that we have to see by.

edit on 1/4/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: Unicorns?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theflyingweldsman
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Good thread


I read recently that the 2004 tsunami was caused by a gravity wave moving faster than the gamma ray bursts that they observed afterwards...Link


Experiments carried out by Eugene Podkletnov show that a shock front outburst produces a longitudinal gravitational wave that travels forward with the burst. He has found that this gravity wave pulse has a speed in excess of 64 times the speed of light (personal communication).

Link to experiment


Not likely to be true, since no gravity wave has ever been detected by anyone at anytime, anywhere. How would Podkletnov (who, btw, always has another reason when experimenters fail to reproduce any of his many claims in independant laboratories) know anything about any gravitational wave produced by a "shock front outburst," other than what's already been hypothesized by many other scientists?

Harte



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectral Norm
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I must confess that I am no expert on the technical details of GPS, but my understanding of the situation at the time was something like this: It is a well known result of general relativity that clocks in differing gravitational fields run at different rates. So, in GPS, you have these clocks in orbit on GPS satellites running at different rates than the ones on the surface of the earth. It was the opinion of the principal investigator of the group I worked for that this effect was modeled incorrectly in GPS. So, the Air Force gave the guy a bunch of grant money to prove that, because they wanted (and eventually got, as I understand it) a GPS system with subcentimeter accuracy.

And that pretty much exhausts my knowledge of the subject,


its a very interesting subject, im no expert either
a guess, a real time "clock offset" algorithm re-syncing every satalite in real time against internal and ground clocks.

xploder



edit on 1/4/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/4/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


This is how aliens move through space



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Very interesting piece.

The western mind is so engrossed in material world that it misses the obvious.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 



you are right that FTL "anything" violates General Relativity
but people have a knee jerk reaction to anyone saying that out loud,


Quot Erod Demonstratum, eh?


i would rather discuss it on its merits but the purists would be offended.


Fair enough... keep up the good fight for valid physics!





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join