What is Digg?50 Comments
- seancanada, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22either way, someone's yankin his chain
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16idreamincode: No idea. Sorry.
bouche: No. If the chain were perfectly taut, when you pull on one end, a pressure wave would move down the chain (limited to the speed of light, likely somewhat below) until the force of the pull was exerted on the other end. This is ignoring gravitational wells and tensile strength.
An a different note: this is a pretty nice example of wave/particle duality and the cool things you can do with it. - idreamincode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I've always wondered if the entangled pair of atoms reacts instantly when one is acted upon, or if it takes the speed of light to move the other entangled atom. So if atom 1 is on Mars, and atom 2 is here, then is it instant or gonna take 10 minutes for information to travel?
I am not a quatum physicist by any means. - mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Okay, I didn't read all the comments. But I have an urge to respond.
"I've always wondered if the entangled pair of atoms reacts instantly when one is acted upon, or if it takes the speed of light to move the other entangled atom. So if atom 1 is on Mars, and atom 2 is here, then is it instant or gonna take 10 minutes for information to travel?
I am not a quatum physicist by any means."
It's instant. This does not violate the laws of relativity, though, because what's traveling is the waveforms (probability waves), which are different from what we would commonly call matter or even information.
"I've always wondered if you had a chain that could reach from here to mars, I was holding one end and someone else was holding the other. The chain is perfectly tight. If I pulled on it, would he feel the pull instantly?
I think he would, we just wouldn't know about it for ten minutes."
No, he wouldn't. That's a force, and forces do not move faster than the speed of light. Furthermore, it'd take 20 minutes for us to know, assuming that it takes light 10 minutes to reach Mars, as we'd have to allot for the trip there and the trip back.
"i am no quantum mechanic, but from what i understand light is the fastest thing to travel in a vacuum, but the force of gravity is felt between two or more objects instantly, no matter the distance. of course, small objects exert less force than large ones, but the distance they cover is instant. physicists call these forces gravitrons"
That's not true. This is how Einstein verified his theory by proving that gravity moves at exactly light-speed. Furthermore, small objects do not necessarily exert less gravity than larger ones. Black holes? White dwarfs? It's the energy. You can find energy with E = mc^2, with E being energy, m being mass, and c^2 being the speed of light squared.
Furthermore, the forces are called gravitons, not gravitrons. They've been speculated to exist for some time now, but we've had no proof. With the advent of string/m-theory, though, we find that the graviton arises naturally from the mathematics of the theories.
"The force of gravity does not actually travel faster then the speed of light, it's effects are limited by the speed of light as well I believe."
Why is he being dugg down? He's absolutely correct.
"The analogy of entangled states and a chain is not correct in many regards. The action is carried on immediately on the second atom, regardless of the distance. That's what Einstein called the "Spooky Action at a Distance" and made him NOT believe in quantum mechanics."
Ah, Einstein. Such a genius, but he could only handle so much. Quantum Mechanics was too much for him. He thought that the universe was too beautiful for something like Quantum Mechanics to be accurate. He never could disprove it, though: all of his attempts (and there were A LOT) failed. Ironically, one of his attempts at disproving the theory resulted in the use of his own Relativity to prove him incorrect. To this day, though we still don't understand *why* the universe works this way, we know that it does. Quantum Mechanics is one of, if not the, most accurate theories that science has ever produced.
"This is completely independant from the speed of light. It's a matter of disambiguing the quantum state of one atom and the entangled one will react, or else the universe will just crash, burn and collapse (or we'd have to change our theory, which would not be a first)."
Yar. For example, if we have two entangled electrons, both of their spins unknown, and we separate them, they will always be decided by each other. If one spins one way, the other spins the opposite way. However, until one is observed (and therefore forced to choose a value from its initial state of quantum uncertainty), the other has no definitive value.
"@ elnerdo: Stehpen Hawking says (proved) that gravity is a force instantaneously felt regardless of loction. I know because I have read his findings. I think he knows what he is talking about don't you?"
Uhm, link me.
Oh, wait, you can't, because Stephen Hawking never said ANYTHING of the sort. You're misinformed, sir. - Protoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well until scientists increase the speed of light, so that they can make stuff go faster...
- bouche, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I've always wondered if you had a chain that could reach from here to mars, I was holding one end and someone else was holding the other. The chain is perfectly tight. If I pulled on it, would he feel the pull instantly?
I think he would, we just wouldn't know about it for ten minutes. - Konquest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The analogy of entangled states and a chain is not correct in many regards. The action is carried on immediately on the second atom, regardless of the distance. That's what Einstein called the "Spooky Action at a Distance" and made him NOT believe in quantum mechanics.
This is completely independant from the speed of light. It's a matter of disambiguing the quantum state of one atom and the entangled one will react, or else the universe will just crash, burn and collapse (or we'd have to change our theory, which would not be a first).
I'll try to digg some reference, but that's what I learnt in my Quantum Mechanics class. - Gryfft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A wave would travel down the chain. The same thing happens close up, but so fast we can't tell.
- bouche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Doesn't Wil Wheaton know something about this?
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Did somebody say shenanigans?
- MSTK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4bouche - with a chain it's easy to visualize how it would not be instananeous. When you pull on one link, that link pulls on another, which pulls on the next, and the next, etc. So it's clear how it would not be instananeous, because even if the delay is as much as 0.000000001 of a second in close range, if you multiply that over the vast distances that light traverses, it'll give one heck of a delay.
However it's harder to visualize it with a dense stick. Say you have a solid metal pole reaching from here to Mars. But you have to realize that it's not exactly solid -- it's merely a bunch of atoms held together by atomic bonds. And when you move it, you're moving a few atoms which tug on the next which tug on the next, the same way as a chain. The delay is less, but over vast distances it can add up. The delay is smaller the more the atoms are packed together (with density), but it's still always present.
Theoretically if you had an infinitely dense object, then it'd be instantaneous. But if it had a finite volume then it must have an infinite mass. And having an infinite mass would cause a whole lot more troubles than just being able to communicate faster than light.
kevinmotel - No, gravity is communicated in fixed speed. The concept that gravity is instananeous (abstractly, like swinging around a ball on a rope and letting the rope go--which lets go the ball instantly) was coined by Newton. Einstein disproved it in one of his major theories. Instead Gravity is more like dents on a trampoline. The sun makes a big dent on the trampoline (the "fabric of spacetime"), and when an object travels near it (say, the Earth), it's pulled into the dent the same way that leaves and rocks fall towards you when you stand on a trampoline. However, if the sun were to suddenly disappear, the dent would pop back into place as a flat surface, but not instananeously -- the same way that if you jump off a trampoline the dent you caused would take some time to move back into place (albeit it's pretty fast). - spookyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This isn't stuff you can just say "I don't think" about. This is well proven science. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are well grounded in experimental and mathematical data. You CANNOT, EVER, EVER, travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. You can't travel AT the speed of light in a vacuum. As you approach the speed of light time-dilation effects increase. At the speed of light time stands still.
The solid answer idreamincode wants is that the "entangled" particles you're speaking of are not real particles. They are virtual particles. Particles do not exist unless they are observed. When not observed, they exist in what is known as a superposition of states. Observing one of them collapses the probability wave and determines the characteristics of that particle, thus instantly (yes INSTANTLY) determining the opposite characteristic for the other. (Eg, if you observe that it's charge is negative, the other particle will have positive charge. This is very hard to get your mind around. Do some research into Schroedinger and Einstein and the cat paradox and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and it becomes clearer. - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@kevinmotel
Einstein fixed that problem a long time ago. It's called general relativity. - pemberba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5bouche: if the chain was perfectly taught it would travel and the speed that the chain could propigate sound. This came a physics discussion I had. If you had a steel bar that was one light year long, and you rotated 360degrees along the Z axis, how long would it take to rotate the whole bar. The speed of sound through the bar divided by the distance (1 light year)
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Or we could repeal the laws of physics as unconstitutional.
- kloo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Now watch the Super Troopers shenanigans camp have no idea what the South Park shenanigans camp are talking about, and vice versa :D
- mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is not information, nor matter. Therefore, it is not bound by relativity's speed-limit, and can move instantly. This has been experimentally verified.
"Possibly, But that depends, you have to think about how gravity acts, and how the physics of the universe are differnt indiffernt locations. I dont really know much but I dont beleive Light to be the fastest.."
What about how gravity acts? It's limited by the speed of light. Different physics in different locations? That's untrue. As far as we've been able to tell, the laws of physics are the same in all locations. Now, why don't you believe light to be the fastest, again? - Bokista, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And some of us are fortunate enough to get both references.
- Dolphinese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2FYI,
http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles/entanglement - mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2EDIT: Sorry, replied to the wrong comment. See the comment in the next thread.
This is not information, nor matter. Therefore, it is not bound by relativity's speed-limit, and can move instantly. This has been experimentally verified.
"Possibly, But that depends, you have to think about how gravity acts, and how the physics of the universe are differnt indiffernt locations. I dont really know much but I dont beleive Light to be the fastest.."
What about how gravity acts? It's limited by the speed of light. Different physics in different locations? That's untrue. As far as we've been able to tell, the laws of physics are the same in all locations. Now, why don't you believe light to be the fastest, again? - zodiacal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the thing that trips me out is that: the speed of light + your current speed isn't true.
- spookyone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Chains and steel bars do not behave in the same way as particles. Macro objects, like chains and steel bars and chocolate pudding follow CLASSICAL MECHANICS. IOW, Newton's laws. Particles like photons, electrons, etc., etc., follow QUANTUM MECHANICS. Schreodinger, Bohr, et al. The speed of light in a vacuum is more closely related to SPECIAL RELATIVITY. Einstein. BTW, the speed of light in a vacuum is not a limit in the sense of a rule, but a consequence of the way space/time is constructed, so it cannot be raised.
Paired particles affect each other instantly. Not very fast, instantly. Once position, for instance, is determined for one of the virtual particles of a pair, the wave function collapses and takes the other with it Before that, they both exist in a "superposition of states". For interesting information about this topic read the Born-Einstein letters, or google Schroedinger's cat. - superrcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is quite a big step from where researchers were only 4 years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2049048.stm - kindassassin96, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Gravity is in fact limited by the speed of light. Look online or in physics journals and that fact is pretty ubiquitous. Regardless of whether its the gravitrons model or the "dent in space"
Imagine for example is someone blew up the sun. If gravity affected us before light, we would still be seeing the sun blazing, but would be hurtling away from it because of the loss of gravity - idreamincode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1thank you mrkmrk! Very informative!
- Elum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with Elohim, I don't think that there is truly a limit, although there might be, and even if there is, it is not likely that we have observed it, the universe is fast, and there is much yet to be explained and explored.
- RichardHendrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'm... so lost...
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@consoneo
Don't turst him that guy doesn't even have a degree in physics.
There are a lot of people on the internet with websites like that and don't know anything about physics. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5No, gravity also travels at the speed of light.
I don't know about the chain idea, but I DO know that the force of gravity travels at the speed of light. - handheldchimp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They better get a full working version up and running before i die...
- lqqkout4elfy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great, when can I buy one of these machines?
- mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very well-said. I see not one factual inaccuracy in your post.
- idreamincode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1thanks Konquest, Looking forward to some references on it.
The best application I could see would be a camera screen on a far away planet that in instantaneous, or even robotics. - mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't digg this guy down, he speaks the truth. That is, assuming he's referring to relativity as "classical."
- idreamincode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd imagine it too... but if they are truely entangled, then the reaction has no effect with the speed of light, yes? I really would like a solid answer on this.
- spookyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, dolphinese, I love it! Great site!
- TwwIX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Teleportation eh!?
So i can turn into a fly!?
No,thx. - Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1id imagine the fastest they could transport it is the speed of light
- Elohim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Possibly, But that depends, you have to think about how gravity acts, and how the physics of the universe are differnt indiffernt locations. I dont really know much but I dont beleive Light to be the fastest..
- spookyone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Instantly.
- Elum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Uhh oops.. I replied to the wrong one... crap sorry, you know what I meant..
- Elum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The force of gravity does not actually travel faster then the speed of light, it's effects are limited by the speed of light as well I believe.
- ashlvsya, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I've got my talking computer, my fly and my naked self.
Just give me the damn science. - Dested, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2YOUR DECREE OF SHENANIGANS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED
- consoneo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1In an article on Advanced Stellar Propulsion Systems, the following was written:
Modify the above illustration by requiring that the two photons be emitted in the same event. For example, there is a device that can convert a single violet photon into two red photons; the total energy remains the same and the requirement that they originate in the same event is satisfied. These photons can then separate as shown in the illustration. It can be shown that if something alters the polarization of the photon moving to the right, something will also happen to the polarization of the one moving to the left. The two photons could be widely separated, even miles from each other, and this will still happen. How can one photon "know" what has happened to the other? Could some effect be propagated across space at twice the speed of light? Or is this what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"a concept that makes physicists very uncomfortable?
Now, that states that communication between particles can happen at the same time, correct? This brings up an interesting concept of our being able to utilize it for instant communications for ourselves.
There is a mythical object called the Ansible in a few science fiction stories. It is told to be an instant communication device, but explanation of how it works is not usually sound.
I wish I knew enough about physics to find an adequate explanation of how this might work, but my knowledge is limited. I imagine, since we can slow light down to 38 some odd MPH, we should be able to, theoretically, trap it for a time just long enough to read changes in its polarization efficiently thus creating a sort of transistor. If both sides could have this (assuming we can trap the second photon, as well, at the desired point), we could create instant communication based upon the same technique as an old fashioned Morse code system. Or, if technology sufficiently advances, we might be able to send text and maybe even voice messages.
Why is it that Science Fiction almost always ends up having a possibility? Is it because anything is possible? Or are we just that lucky? :P
Advanced Propulsion Article can be found at: http://members.dancris.com/~bfraser/4v4a/ADVPROP.html
(That site has a diggload of good information on it.) - andrewrchambers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0faster than the speed of light???..... can..not .. comprehend.....
- kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4i am no quantum mechanic, but from what i understand light is the fastest thing to travel in a vacuum, but the force of gravity is felt between two or more objects instantly, no matter the distance. of course, small objects exert less force than large ones, but the distance they cover is instant. physicists call these forces gravitrons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton - lorensingley, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@ elnerdo: Stehpen Hawking says (proved) that gravity is a force instantaneously felt regardless of loction. I know because I have read his findings. I think he knows what he is talking about don't you?
- truebluefunk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1he would feel the pull instantly if the chain was a perfect rigid body. That's kid of (I believe) the idea behind superconductors...when they get cold enough the electrons are so densely packed that the electron flow is instantly transmitted and resistance is zero.
- teitoku, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0Calling this 'teleportation' is shenanigans and bullcrap.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is