Instantaneous travel of macroscopic objects?

[paultrr]

One thing to remember is that SR/GR provides us with a classical picture of spacetime. Quantum theory is not classical at all. Its only by imposing limits that we recover the classical spacetime picture. But the theory in itself does not require such limits. As far down in scale that our current tech allows us to study quantum effects the theory works. The problem is not so much with the theory as with the fact that quantum theory shows us our classical picture simply only works at macro levels or when we impose constraints. Within those artifical constraints SR/GR works fine. But beyond a certain scale both tend to break down. This is where the modern search for a theory of everything, as it is sometimes termed, comes into play. It's the realm of the quantum foam where our classical ideas of spacetime turn into quicksand that all this search is about.

[paultrr]

What never ceases to amaze me is that people read the accounts of Einstein's debate against those who held to quantum theory and actually miss the real issue that Einstein was debating in the first place. I think sometimes they get hung up on his dice thing. Einstein started with a classical picture of spacetime. He saw spacetime as static. Later, observational evidence required him to abandon that classical picture and modify it into a picture where spacetime expanded. Then along comes quantum theory with these weird action at what appears to be a distance effects that ran counter to his classical picture under SR. Yet, Einstein helped provide us with the foundation of quantum theory itself. A guy faced with this has only two avenues. He can take the stance that quantum theory must somehow be wrong or incomplete or he can accept the theory and its evidence. Einstein choice to stick with the classical. Modern theory choice the other path. But ever since then we had this problem between quantum theory and classical theory because both of them by experimental evidence are correct even though both provide a picture that is different.

[paultrr]

For those who have never studied DSR, DSR is a theory where the coproduct of the kappa-Poincare algebra is interpreted as defining the law of change of reference frames and not the law of scattering. This point of view places DSR as a theory, half-way between Special Relativity and General Relativity. The biggest difference is there is more than one frame of reference to account for under this theory.

 

Going over to quantum theory and one's interpretation of quantum events versus macroscale classical events one is trying to match up two different frames of reference who's internal measuring rods are different. Now one can force the second frame to recover a classical picture or one can simple except that the frames are different and that nature performs the feat of translation between the two. In this case the macroscales remain classical and the microscales remain unclassical and we end up with two types of information exchange. The assumption at the current point is that classical information remains limited to macroscales and quantum information remains limited to microscales.

[alxian]

I want to make my first reply in ignorance, basically of everything after the first page of the discussion.

 

One to keep my theory raw and untainted, and two I’m so tired I may fall asleep from reading and forget to reply.

 

 

My theory goes as follows

 

Light of course is not the ultimate speed limit, and, I can't in all good conscience accept that anything can occur instantaneously. Not because Einstein said so but because I believe unless energy can be shared across vast distances instantaneously (creating huge amounts of perfectly identical space… between space thinking tunneling between the fundamental fabric of space (fabric of space the smallest forms of matter and energy between which nothing exists, this means also the energy fields thus absolutely nothing can affect anything along the entire stretch but yet information can pass through/along (wormholes).. And (or) unless matter/energy can be forced through c still existing in our measurable time scales for the entire distance between here and there, its not that an object will reach a place before it leaves like a black hole matter will seem to exist the whole distance between here and there… hopefully nothing that shouldn’t be there disturbing the transit. In both instances matter will not ‘travel’ but will exist here there and in between for the whole ‘transit’ time.

 

 

Foggy point 1

 

Does matter become energy at an event horizon? Or does it remain matter, I’d think energy given the fact its ripped apart.. But then can atoms survive the transfer is a better question.. Would then black hole be an odd soup of liquid energy? A new substance we have yet to truly understand? Like superfluids and the core of massive planets and stars.

 

Foggy point 2

 

What is the current theory about superluminal travel? Can particles maintain their atomic structures, nucleus dynamics and electron orbit dynamics (charge) while traveling superluminally or does maintain the vector incur some form of drag that interferes with those dynamics forcing matter to slow down or stop entirely when traveling superluminally lest it be torn apart/lose integrity?

 

 

had to break it up into 3 since y=this forum has a 10k character limit.. weak

[alxian]

So

 

One, superluminal travel is possible, this is upheld by modern physics by it not being impossible for the constituents of matter to travel at speeds greater than c, this requires though that matter can remain discrete while in effect attempting to transcend the bonds of subluminal reality. After c matter becomes energy (foggy point 1), but some discrete particles are known to transcend c, tachyons for instance. what other undetectable particles might there be beyond c that either our science has no means of detecting or that exist without of (beyond) or capacity to measure (even if we could construct a big enough detector.. energy with such a long wave signature that we may never detect it, but larger systems are still affected by its existence like planetary system or the fabric of the universe itself.)

 

Two, time travel is impossible. which is also upheld by modern physics, even if quantum level particles can be made to move around faster than c, it has yet to be proven that complex matter can move superluminally beyond mere theory, also you must consider that most of the time travel mythology has to do with matter surviving intact the passage through the c barrier at the brink of an event horizon, which everyone knows molecular bonds are not that strong, which may be an element in the calculation of c, all particles we know of are not able to maintain self cohesiveness its like an atom versus a black hole the black hole exerts forces similar to the atom but stronger, thus the atom itself at the boundary of c (even horizon) yields to the forces of the black holes event horizon, by definition the sheer created at that line where matter goes from zero to sixty (0 to c and beyond) instantly (apparently.. since to the outside observer since we can't 'see' anything happen at all. I’d postulate that matter is turned instantly into energy (that even the atom itself cannot survive past c (at least not conventional atoms… while some super particles like tachyons can survive past c).. not necessarily in the black hole event horizon example but in an example where something is to exceed c it has to be transformed into energy (lose even atomic cohesiveness like in an atomic explosion.

 

three, quantum physics needs to discover the nature of a few things, such as what is required for particles (atoms and the like to exist beyond c without turning into energy (survive as atoms, by having all elements of the atom ‘moving’ with the same vector, the limit barrier of c is the same for conventional atomic cohesiveness (foggy point 2)), read: can any particle traverse c and maintain its dynamics, nuclear spin and electron orbits, and cohesiveness of the nucleus, and if so can matter which is essentially hyper condensed energy to my understanding, inter atomic bonds and molecular bonds while having the same superluminal vector.. or are some atoms more affected by superluminal drag than other thus making superluminal vectored travel by complex atomic structures impossible? I mean hypersonic drag was a huge problem until we learned about such things as swept wings, what is matter has to be equally compressed to increase atomic bonds, or something like that to avoid superluminal ‘drag’.

 

With this admittedly ignorant and limited outlook, and my shared confusion with Divine about what occurs in motion beyond the planck length (which oddly sound like monopoles like in dragons egg…) and its relation to time. I’m left to wonder is matter a function of a wave vibration on this string theory? Or are the monopoles actually discrete particles dancing, but that the monopoles themselves are not static.. they actually move around and this avoids such things as being able to compute with precise exactitude the fabric of space using precise grids to map out string (monopole locations in super computers).. for that matter how fast could the average monopole be moving or would the static nature of both the static vibrating monopole of string theory and the free radical type dancing monopole be such that only their interacting fields have any direct impact on the more complex universe? read: what’s more important to us the ability of strings to transmit wave form energy perfectly from one string to the next or the gyroscopic field generated by the monopole? Which forms the basis of more complex systems.. i.e. does the string stay in the same place transmitting data, or do monopoles move within large systems their fundamental building blocks?

 

time as i understand it is the relationship between matter and c (or the absolute speed limit, which needs to be redefined given the discovery of tachyons and tunneling, the natural observation of particles traveling through ‘’no space’’ (which curiously only means space devoid of everything including time) both referred to by Card and Herbert), time has little meaning other than to impose a global grid like measure upon all that we can observe and thus measure, thus the existence of time is measurable only if something moves (in zero energy environments time wouldn’t move.. BUT in terms of superluminal travel nothing should be able to overcome the vector or it will no longer be able to move in the same direction as the whole thus time doesn’t slow down when traveling faster that light.. it should stop altogether. What if though as quantum physics states time is indeed irrelevant? And atomic cohesion can be maintained and thus momentums and complex systems will continue to exist and persist even at superluminal speeds? I think that all movement should stop to respect the vector.

 

We are left only with discretion and indiscretion. In a indiscrete universe at the smallest scale we can detect or theorize which is vibrating string theory each string is a static node on a network, only the actual vibrations travel by virtue of the simplicity of the universe at the level even the most complex events at our scale are only simple vibrations like multi channel audio coming out of one speaker. What if though this theory is fundamentally wrong? What if in fact the universe is truly discrete and infinitely complex? The stuff that is at the smallest most basic scale isn’t really the the smallest stuff there is and thus never is the universe truly devoid of something at even the most infinitesimal level you know truly discrete?

 

So.. we have two possible universes one based on information and indiscretion where virtually anything is possible because everything is just waveform information traveling along a network of vibrating strings where measure is all important (and for that matter definite and possible in an absolute (one day we’ll measure past the string and find nothing, or alternately a very discrete universe that at its most fundamental (that which we can measure) exists only by the interactions between tiny gyroscopic motes (the boundary between matter and energy though tachyons and others as of yet still undiscovered particles may yet be found to be smaller and faster than tachyons, that take advantage of inter spatial rifts (read void spaces between particles large enough or powerful enough to obstruct superluminal travel.. read: extremely fast near superfluid like travel)(i think card called them filotes and aiuas..) beyond these exists apparently nothing (that we can measure, but odd behaviors in larger measurable particles will point to there existence, but what other than the dancing between these fundamental particles causes them to dance besides weird inter spatial energy itself? thus measure is futile because it will always be inadequate because it would continue on forever trying to define all aspects of energy affecting the fundamental particles of the universe.

 

in universe one, that of the string waveform, if matter is just a function on the waveform and c is an abstract limit of matter before calling it energy then cannot matter be maintained in a state so close to its matter form that it could travel as light and them hiccup at its destination whereupon the laws of the physical universe as we know them would apply? Think about it, bombs explode into energy, if that energy could be made to be directed in on direction.. All of the kinetic energy pointed in one unified vector, and them amplified but maintained within an electromagnetic field could matter not then me made to travel as energy and upon reaching its destination be cooled back into matter by recompressing the energy within the field.. Which technically would be negated if the vector was indeed universal.. All of the energy would automatically recompress upon reaching the destination (think stargate but the event horizon as being a particle accelerator imparting massive amounts of amplification to the waveform of the energy you wish to transmit but there could be nothing in between the amp and receiver so as to not dilute or slow the transmission in anyway the lack of anything in the middle area would suck information instantly from one side to the other), how to get rid of the pesky matter in the way.. But absolute vacuum the absence of any form of matter of energy, nothing could be in the way of your information stream. given the criteria i think such travel could be possible... in a universe based on information

[alxian]

as for a discrete universe where there is nothing connecting everything (like how in string theory everything is information), one based on infinite complexity, where the only absolute is the barrier between matter and energy, which thanks to tachyons we haven't found yet, and perhaps there is none, like how we lack valuable parts of the evolutionary lines of pretty much ever living species on earth... moving at superluminal speeds seems to also require vast amounts of energy but the distance would be real no stupid vacuum tricks allowed here, but an actual real distance that would exist even if nothing was in the way. In the absence of matter and energy you'd still require transforming potential energy into kinetic energy to 'move' from here to there by way of in between.

[alxian]

i forgot the most basic thing..

 

 

when travelling back in time and instantaneously from point to point..

 

are you aasuming you are moving you molecular self and thus everything further down the scale right down to strings or smaller?

 

of do you plan on destroying yourself and recreating yourself by using the stored information in buffer to redisgning yourself someplace else.

 

i never understood how this destructive method could have any appeal. technically in star trek they murdered everyone who went through the matter transporter and the rebuilt them elsewhere from crude plans stored in a memory buffer..

 

now i can't say how plausible the concept of being able to store the required information about every quatum relationship it would take to rebuild a human being.. and the processing power o do it in a fraction of a second so as to not destroy vital tissues but exposing them to the elements but, suffice it to say the old destructive technique is barbaric and laughably impossible.

 

so instantaneous matter teleportation of living things is out, inert matter? meh not difference to me, but i don't wanna die or risk being cloned if the buffer is emptied and the console BSODs mid transport..

[alxian]

hmmm superluminal travel as i mentioned will make a light show out of near earth orbit shipping lanes methinks..

 

 

in your example tormod you say you'll see your self for eight minutes hovering above the sun.

 

wrong

 

you will see yourself as a streak from the moment you left. having not travelled in time you'll have left by the time you arrive. in fact, unless you know exactly where the light will be at any specific point.. there should be much for it to reflect off of if your ship is traveling faster than light.. either your ship will absorb light into its hull or your ship will accelerate the light in various directions, the least you would see is a horribly faint blur, and it shouldn't be perfectly reflected either.

 

the moment you leave the sun is the moment light stops reflecting off of you, the moment you reach earth is when light starts reflecting off of you again at any appreciable level. any moment in between you're a blur at best. and it would be impossible to focus on nothing since you aren't really there..

[Tormod]

had to break it up into 3 since y=this forum has a 10k character limit.. weak

 

Welcome, alxian, and thanks for pointing this out, I was not aware of this limit (we recently upgraded and not every troll has reared its head yet). However, your posts in total are not 10k so I don't know why it would break it apart.

 

I could care less for comments like "weak", though.

 

Also please make sure you point out who you are responding to by using the quote function.

[alxian]

*By our perspective time keeping on earth its traveled backwards in time*

 

the ftl peeps will slow down in relation to the universe since we won't perceive them to be moving,

 

and given that slow down, which i think is due to the difficulty of moving against the vector its like continually accelerating, not only will it take a long time to accelerate past c even afetr c you are still hitting drag in the form of light and interstellar dust. thus you'll still need to be accelerating, untill that is you have to start slowing down mid way through your flight, or even more violently if you plan on stopping closer to your destination.

 

the first three post were meant to be one post (totalling over 12000k characters), sorry about the weak comment i've just come from the xbox forum and henceforth shall leave the churlish behavior behind.. as well quoting is at our discretion i'll be sure to reaccustom myself in its proper use, though i as responding to the topic in general not any one individual. hmm i see i sound even more like an *** for shooting your example to pieces after divine did.. hmm.. what an introduction i've made a mess of..

[Tormod]

the first three post were meant to be one post (totalling over 12000k characters), sorry about the weak comment i've just come from the xbox forum and henceforth shall leave the churlish behavior behind..

 

My bad: I did NOT intend to insult you and I have now removed the 10k limit thanks to you. I was actually unaware of this limit...there are about one gazillion settings in vBulletin and it takes a while to get every little detail right. :)

 

You are very welcome to Hypography, alxian! Thanks for posting very interesting ideas. Don't worry about introduction issues...we've seen everything. :wink:

[DivineNathicana]

hmmm superluminal travel as i mentioned will make a light show out of near earth orbit shipping lanes methinks..

 

 

in your example tormod you say you'll see your self for eight minutes hovering above the sun.

 

wrong

 

you will see yourself as a streak from the moment you left. having not travelled in time you'll have left by the time you arrive. in fact, unless you know exactly where the light will be at any specific point.. there should be much for it to reflect off of if your ship is traveling faster than light.. either your ship will absorb light into its hull or your ship will accelerate the light in various directions, the least you would see is a horribly faint blur, and it shouldn't be perfectly reflected either.

 

the moment you leave the sun is the moment light stops reflecting off of you, the moment you reach earth is when light starts reflecting off of you again at any appreciable level. any moment in between you're a blur at best. and it would be impossible to focus on nothing since you aren't really there..

 

Now, I travel instantaneously back to Earth with my spaceship's black hole field generator and look through my telescope when I arrive back on Earth. I will not see the sunspot move into view for another eight minutes. However, assuming I have an incredibly good telescope, I can also see my own spaceship hover above the surface of the Sun for those 8 minutes, and indeed also listen to signals I sent 8 minutes before I left the Sun.

 

Hmm, I was just reading over some of alxian's replies when it occurred to me that it's not that we would see Tormod on the sun for eight minutes, it's that we would see him eight minutes LATER, and for however long he decided to stay there, after which he would disappear (by means of the wormhole). I'm not sure if the reflection of light in different directions off the spaceship would matter much because a.) you're not moving at any relative fraction of c if you're standing still, and b.) I'm sure that if he was floating next to the surface of the sun (and hypothetically staying alive at the same time...), there would be enough light for him to be seen (if not too much! but that's a different issue).

 

- Alisa

[Tormod]

It's good to have polls! But the one in this thread is not easy to answer. The Big Bang model is also a cosmological model which should be on that list - as is the epkyrotic universe. "Relativistic theories" is not a model for our universe, it is a study of certain physical properties of it.

 

(And not everyone would figure out that LQG is Loop Quantum Gravity...).

 

So 10 points for trying but I think the poll needs some modifications. :wink:

[gpdone]

It's good to have polls! But the one in this thread is not easy to answer. The Big Bang model is also a cosmological model which should be on that list - as is the epkyrotic universe. "Relativistic theories" is not a model for our universe, it is a study of certain physical properties of it.

 

(And not everyone would figure out that LQG is Loop Quantum Gravity...).

 

So 10 points for trying but I think the poll needs some modifications. :wink:

I agree. Thats why I don get no stinking POINTS! But seriously... If you fix it they will come!

 

Also Tormod I can find no fault with your account and it is correct,if I give you poetic license to instantly get out of your spaceship and setup your telescope to view all 8.33 minutes...and I do!

Alisa and Alxian have logical problems in there views as stated.

 

Lee

[Tormod]

in your example tormod you say you'll see your self for eight minutes hovering above the sun.

 

wrong

 

you will see yourself as a streak from the moment you left. having not travelled in time you'll have left by the time you arrive. in fact, unless you know exactly where the light will be at any specific point.. there should be much for it to reflect off of if your ship is traveling faster than light..

 

No. You will never see my ship move towards the Earth, it will vanish.

 

Like lee pointed out, you are misreading my post. The entire hypothetical situation is based upon the assumption that I could travel from the Sun to the Earth *instantly* through a wormhole. I would not be travelling at all. So when I look back towards the Sun what I would see is the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago, and my spaceship hovering above it for 8 minuts until the moment when I left...after which it will disappear. No motion will be observed, no acceleration.

 

I have already explained this at least twice now. And I have pointed out that this is hypothetical and is only used to explain one scenario in which we have instant movement from A to B over vast stretches of space without the passing of time.

[paultrr]

I might suggest that there is a very sound scientific reason we are getting the results from this Poll. While a lot of us out here have one of the current theories that we favor, none of those currently being considered has thus, far been able to answer everything about this universe. The general idea behind the Unified Field Theory search is there should be one set of elegant equations out there that discribes not only the universe at present, but also how it got here. At the current time, while each of the major models has aspects that seem to fit the correct picture, none has been able to achieve that goal. So in general if there is a findable solution then its logical to assume that such would come from a different approach not yet looked at or perhaps a mi of them all.

 

But there is also something to be learned from the fact that if the Universe is vaster in scope than we can ever hope to discover then in essence the sum total of the knowedge of the universe may always be out of range a bit. Something Godel once tried to say to Einstein. My own personal thoughts on this is that I suspet we can discover a set of equations that let's us understand how the universe was formed and how the whole set of forces all unify together. But I also suspect there will always be gaps in our knowledge. More to learn if you wish. From a physics point of view that would actually be a good thing. At least all those jobs would be secure. But from a normal human point of view where we like to think we understand everything that will also always be an uncomfortable position.

 

As for the rest about the odd idea of what would happen or be observed with wormhole like instant travel I might suggest studying some of the articles on time travel done by Kip Thorne.

[DivineNathicana]

It's good to have polls! But the one in this thread is not easy to answer. The Big Bang model is also a cosmological model which should be on that list - as is the epkyrotic universe. "Relativistic theories" is not a model for our universe, it is a study of certain physical properties of it.

 

(And not everyone would figure out that LQG is Loop Quantum Gravity...).

 

So 10 points for trying but I think the poll needs some modifications. :wink:

 

Alright, first of all, I wassn't listing cosmological models but rather physical theories. There are way too many equally credible cosmological models such as the Big Bang, the two branes theory, and etc. That's exactly why it makes sense to have Relativistic Theories on there.

 

I can fix the Loop Quantum Gravity one, but I'm not sure how one may edit polls.

 

Also, 10 points on what? I'm confused. = )

 

- Alisa