-
#20
by
leovinus
on 14 Jan, 2020 21:36
-
I believe we are in complete agreement on the importance of testable and falsifiable experiments for quantum mechanics. With respect to the paper, I believe the authors simply wanted to summarize their thoughts on a.o. the measurement problem, which is relevant here, and are well aware that someone else will have to come up with testable QM experiments which is probably for another thread.
-
#21
by
JohnFornaro
on 15 Jan, 2020 12:09
-
Slightly off-topic, but as the discussion above keeps mentioning the "measurement", you can find a recent, deeper discussion of quantum mechanics and the "measurement process" over here in Section 2. I found insightful. YMMV.
Thanks! Just now digging into this paper. First impression: Super-determinism is an argument for this universe being a simulation.
Bell, from the paper: "In this matter of causality it is a great inconvenience that the real world is given to us once only."
-
#22
by
giulioprisco
on 04 Mar, 2020 07:38
-
The quantum teleportation schemes devised so far rely on exchanging classical information via a secondary classical channel (slower than light). This doesn't rule out (imo) the possibility that quantum entanglement could be used for FTL messaging, but we are not there yet.
-
#23
by
meberbs
on 04 Mar, 2020 14:24
-
The quantum teleportation schemes devised so far rely on exchanging classical information via a secondary classical channel (slower than light). This doesn't rule out (imo) the possibility that quantum entanglement could be used for FTL messaging, but we are not there yet.
It is called the no- communication theorem, and it proves that if you want to transmit information, you need a classical channel. No FTL communication can be done in quantum, not now,and not ever, because it has been rigorously ruled out.
-
#24
by
Bob Woods
on 05 Mar, 2020 07:48
-
"... No FTL communication can be done in quantum, not now,and not ever, because it has been rigorously ruled out.
I think you need to proceed that statement with the qualifier of " Based on our current understanding of physics.."
This is, after all., the section for "NEW Physics for Space Technology."
-
#25
by
RotoSequence
on 05 Mar, 2020 08:16
-
"... No FTL communication can be done in quantum, not now,and not ever, because it has been rigorously ruled out.
I think you need to proceed that statement with the qualifier of " Based on our current understanding of physics.."
This is, after all., the section for "NEW Physics for Space Technology."
Since the universe has doggedly, persistently rebuffed our best efforts to communicate with entanglement - to the point that a photonic system will
communicate its state backwards in time just to prevent information from being transmitted, I wouldn't be getting my hopes up and using qualifiers like "yet."
-
#26
by
meberbs
on 05 Mar, 2020 12:40
-
"... No FTL communication can be done in quantum, not now,and not ever, because it has been rigorously ruled out.
I think you need to proceed that statement with the qualifier of " Based on our current understanding of physics.."
This is, after all., the section for "NEW Physics for Space Technology."
I do try to be careful with things like that, in this case I covered it by saying "in quantum" which is not new physics. Anything with FTL communication would no longer be quantum as we use the term today, since nothing in this thread actually includes a proposal of new physics this seems sufficient as a response.
As for the possibility of someone proposing new physics similar to this, see the post above this one, it is not a promising line of research.
-
#27
by
giulioprisco
on 06 Mar, 2020 08:39
-
The quantum teleportation schemes devised so far rely on exchanging classical information via a secondary classical channel (slower than light). This doesn't rule out (imo) the possibility that quantum entanglement could be used for FTL messaging, but we are not there yet.
It is called the no- communication theorem, and it proves that if you want to transmit information, you need a classical channel. No FTL communication can be done in quantum, not now,and not ever, because it has been rigorously ruled out.
According to many experts, you are right, but I prefer to be more open minded. Fundamental reality is non-local (this is not only a theoretical result of quantum physics but also a fact repeatedly confirmed in the lab), and perhaps we'll be able to exploit non-locality for communications. According to other experts, Lorentz invariance is not a feature of fundamental reality but an effective field feature manifested at the scales and energies that we have probed so far.
-
#28
by
meberbs
on 06 Mar, 2020 16:14
-
According to many experts, you are right, but I prefer to be more open minded.
As I said it is a theorem. Theorem means rigorous proof. You might as well be saying that you are "open-minded" about whether 2+2=4. It cannot be done in quantum, you would need something different and entirely new to get around the existing proof.
Fundamental reality is non-local (this is not only a theoretical result of quantum physics but also a fact repeatedly confirmed in the lab), and perhaps we'll be able to exploit non-locality for communications.
Nope, the experiments you seem to be referencing are Bell's inequality tests, which specifically exclude local hidden variables. This is more specific than saying it is "non-local" although that is one of the easier to understand remaining possibilities.
According to other experts, Lorentz invariance is not a feature of fundamental reality but an effective field feature manifested at the scales and energies that we have probed so far.
Yeah, time travel might just be possible, but if so, quantum mechanics as we know it does not allow it at any energy scale. GR theoretically does but so far only in impossible to create conditions. (You would need negative mass particles which are non-existent.)
-
#29
by
Bob Woods
on 07 Mar, 2020 17:39
-
Yeah, time travel might just be possible, but if so, quantum mechanics as we know it does not allow it at any energy scale. GR theoretically does but so far only in impossible to create conditions. (You would need negative mass particles which are non-existent.)
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-negative-mass.htmlNot sure if this experiment was refuted...
-
#30
by
meberbs
on 07 Mar, 2020 18:00
-
Yeah, time travel might just be possible, but if so, quantum mechanics as we know it does not allow it at any energy scale. GR theoretically does but so far only in impossible to create conditions. (You would need negative mass particles which are non-existent.)
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-negative-mass.html
Not sure if this experiment was refuted...
As usual, news articles about such things completely fail to capture the specifics. This has essentially nothing to do with the negative mass I referenced, and instead talks about a system with some interesting dynamics properties. It does not have true net negative energy, or curve space backwards. (Specifically, they mention "negative effective mass." Effective mass is a term that comes up in quantum mechanics, such as when all but a few states in a semiconductor are filled, the system is treated as if it has a small number of imaginary particles called holes, which have positive charge. This is simpler than directly considering the large number of electrons, and makes it easier to analyze some unintuitive effects such as the fact that a test of the Hall effect would indicate positive charge carriers, even though it is actually electrons moving around.)
When seeing ground breaking claims laid out like this to check if they really are what you think, ask yourself whether you see any statements in the article making it sound like they are a shoe in for the Nobel prize.
-
#31
by
Hakasays
on 16 Mar, 2020 13:31
-
-
#32
by
RotoSequence
on 17 Mar, 2020 02:13
-
-
#33
by
Hakasays
on 17 Mar, 2020 13:31
-
Interesting paper, but what's happened on that line of research in the eight years hence?
Very little, it would seem. It's likely they lack sufficient context from which extrapolate other possibilities/experiments.
In the modern context, wave propagation is usually determined as a singular constant C rather than the dual factors of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of empty space.
I suspect they will have more success once they break 'light' down into its individual components.
-
#34
by
RSE
on 27 Mar, 2020 14:43
-
The previous post brings up the issue of – What is the maximum speed of light?
Before I get all the demands that the speed of light is a constant ( C ), one must note that the speed of light is a variable, depending on the density of the medium. The denser, the slower. This variability has been experimentally proven, over and over again.
However, starting in the late 1990's, fields have been created, with both negative permeability and negative permittivity, and later fields (of both types, ++ or –) that have a permeability and permittivity lower than that of a free vacuum. Totally artificial, but produces.
So the experimental question is – what would the speed of light be in a field with much lower permittivity and permeability than a free vacuum?
According to one of the boundary conditions of Maxwell's Equations, the speed should be much higher. (See the previous post's equation.)
I have yet to read of this experiment ever being done.
-
#35
by
dustinthewind
on 28 Mar, 2020 05:02
-
Interesting paper, but what's happened on that line of research in the eight years hence?
Very little, it would seem. It's likely they lack sufficient context from which extrapolate other possibilities/experiments.
In the modern context, wave propagation is usually determined as a singular constant C rather than the dual factors of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of empty space.
I suspect they will have more success once they break 'light' down into its individual components.
I suspect there is something to this. Locally the universe conspires to give us the impression when we locally measure the speed of light that it is constant but non locally it is not constant. The very nature gravitational lensing is that light is bent by both time and space can be viewed as a non-local change in the speed of light. WarpTech used to bring up a paper linked to this that related to a non-local change in the speed of light via a polarized vacuum. One of the names was Harold Puthoff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizable_vacuumSo light slows near a gravitational well. I began to view this in one dimension where a gravitational well is a dip in potential. An object falling into a potential falls to a lower energy state but in this lower energy state time will tick slower and space physically shrinks. Objects want to fall to the lower energy state via pressure or gravity. The funny thing is you can kind of see this curvature in one dimension as a second dimension which represents the transition of space to a lower energy state inducing curvature so space does curve. This change in slope induces what appears to be a local relative change in velocity or acceleration. If we have 2 dimensions for every dimension of space this makes 6 dimensions. This is why an object can become relativistically flat as one of its dimensions can rotate into a time like dimension. In fact an object falling into an orbit around a black hole can effectively become one dimensional if it orbits at the speed of light and resides near the event horizion. then it becomes flat in 2 dimensions leaving only length. The orbit velocity is perpendicular to the gravitational horizion so the relativistic pancaking happens in 2 perpendicular dimensions.
So we can see this reduction in potential of space around matter which is gravity. However when merging black holes brake against space time, they transfers their kinetic energy to space time. The problem is a gravitational wave represents more potential energy in space time so it resides at a higher potential. Visualizing this it appears a gravity waves should be gravitationally repulsive at very large energy densities as radiation is repulsive to an electric charge that generates it or absorbs. On a large scale I suspect this is responsible for einsteins negative cosmological constant or dark energy and possibly dark matter - energy residing in space time in the voids that is gravitationally repulsive. This is like inflated space time where the plank length would be larger and the speed of light would be non-locally faster than c. If we look at air or some dielectrics heating them speeds up velocities of sound or signals from changing dielectric properties. Ill give you an example.
google books
Qualitative differences between linear and nonlinear waves
Some characteristic of nonlinear wave motion can be described in general terms.
...
The distincitive feature of nonlinear waves, however concerns disturbances or discontinuities whichare not necessarily small. In linear waves motion any initial discontinuity across a surface is preserved as a discontinuity and propagated with sound speed. Nonlinear wave motion behaves in a different manner: Suppose there is an initial discontinuity between two regions of different pressures, densities, and flow velocities. Then there are the following alternative possibilities: either the initial discontinuity is resolved immediately and the disturbance, while propagated, becomes continuous, or the initial discontinuity is propagated through one or two shock fronts, advancing not at sonic but at supersonic speed relative to the medium.
Another example is
Predicted properties of quantum non-equilibrium
Valentini showed that his expansion of the De Broglie–Bohm theory would allow “signal nonlocality” for non-equilibrium cases in which {\displaystyle \rho (x,y,z,t)}\rho (x,y,z,t) ≠{\displaystyle |\psi (x,y,z,t)|^{2}}|\psi (x,y,z,t)|^{2},[3][4] thereby violating the assumption that signals cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
Valentini furthermore showed that an ensemble of particles with known wave function and known nonequilibrium distribution could be used to perform, on another system, measurements that violate the uncertainty principle.[7]
These predictions differ from predictions that would result from approaching the same physical situation by means of the Copenhagen interpretation and therefore would in principle make the predictions of this theory accessible to experimental study. As it is unknown whether or how quantum non-equilibrium states can be produced, it is difficult or impossible to perform such experiments.
However, also the hypothesis of quantum non-equilibrium Big Bang gives rise to quantitative predictions for nonequilibrium deviations from quantum theory which appear to be more easily accessible to observation.[8]
You see the big bang would be gravitationally repulsive and expanded the universe faster than light.
Now you might wonder if there are any examples in space time where such a signal has possibly been seen to exist. There is one I suspect. Some might be skeptical of him but I think he might be legit.
Eugene Podkletnov particurlarly his gravity impulse generator which he charges capacitors to millions of volts and discharges them through super condutors. Low electron density means the electrons reach rediculous velocities and accelerations in superconductors and I think possibly interact with space time generating high energy dense gravity waves which travel at ftl ~66c as of his claims. see video at 19 minutes. I don't think they actually are faster than light non-locally. If you inflate the plank length and increase time nonlocally you increase c and this probably has an effect on the non-local electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space changing the non-local speed of c.
Technically such a wave would reduce your effective mass. The opposite of gravity. Be gravitationally repulsive which Eugene does seem to claim indirectly and travel ftl so I suspect he may be telling the truth as it seems to fit the puzzle. Negative mass effects are necessary for warp drives. I suspect you would surf the wave, passing it through your ship making you mas-less, instantly reaching c locally while exceeding c non-locally. There would have to be some way to disengage but your time slowing down should be countered by the wave which is negative mass and speeds up time - opposite of gravity via mass.
I think this article might simply be that some ions are being accelerated to nonlocal FTL by a gravity wave from a highly energetic explosion. Later the wave dissipates. You get your reverse signal.
https://www.sciencealert.com/faster-than-light-speeds-could-be-the-reason-why-gamma-ray-bursts-seem-to-go-backwards-in-time/ampThis might all also be related to super cavitation which is used to push torpedos to high speeds in water.
-
#36
by
meberbs
on 14 Apr, 2020 04:15
-
Interesting paper, but what's happened on that line of research in the eight years hence?
Very little, it would seem. It's likely they lack sufficient context from which extrapolate other possibilities/experiments.
In the modern context, wave propagation is usually determined as a singular constant C rather than the dual factors of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of empty space.
I suspect they will have more success once they break 'light' down into its individual components.
Your final statement is nonsensical. You cannot separate the electric and magnetic fields. They are a single thing, the electromagnetic field, they transform together as a tensor in special relativity.
The answer therefore seems more like that it is an abandoned dead end.
-
#37
by
meberbs
on 14 Apr, 2020 04:25
-
The previous post brings up the issue of – What is the maximum speed of light?
Before I get all the demands that the speed of light is a constant ( C ), one must note that the speed of light is a variable, depending on the density of the medium. The denser, the slower. This variability has been experimentally proven, over and over again.
No, you are confusing 2 distinct things, the speed of light in vacuum, which is a universal constant, and the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation in a material, which is completely irrelevant to this thread. See this video below if you want additional explanation:
However, starting in the late 1990's, fields have been created, with both negative permeability and negative permittivity, and later fields (of both types, ++ or –) that have a permeability and permittivity lower than that of a free vacuum. Totally artificial, but produces.
So the experimental question is – what would the speed of light be in a field with much lower permittivity and permeability than a free vacuum?
According to one of the boundary conditions of Maxwell's Equations, the speed should be much higher. (See the previous post's equation.)
I have yet to read of this experiment ever being done.
Metamaterials with negative index of refraction and such are cool, but that is just bending light in special ways (and it is essentially always frequency dependent.) Anything about propagation speeds faster than the vacuum speed of light in a material is some form of illusion. The meaningful velocity that energy and information travels at (usually the group velocity) will always within the universal constant c. Anything faster than that (such as a phase velocity in typical cases) will just be an illusion, just like a shadow or the point of a laser beam can move arbitrarily fast as long as it is being cast far enough away from the source.
-
#38
by
meberbs
on 14 Apr, 2020 04:49
-
Interesting paper, but what's happened on that line of research in the eight years hence?
Very little, it would seem. It's likely they lack sufficient context from which extrapolate other possibilities/experiments.
In the modern context, wave propagation is usually determined as a singular constant C rather than the dual factors of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of empty space.
I suspect they will have more success once they break 'light' down into its individual components.
I suspect there is something to this. Locally the universe conspires to give us the impression when we locally measure the speed of light that it is constant but non locally it is not constant. The very nature gravitational lensing is that light is bent by both time and space can be viewed as a non-local change in the speed of light. WarpTech used to bring up a paper linked to this that related to a non-local change in the speed of light via a polarized vacuum. One of the names was Harold Puthoff.
No, see my above post on why this is based on a misunderstanding. (That is at least a common enough misunderstanding, but your post goes much much farther than that) The bringing in GR is just an irrelevant change in topic, Gravitational time dilation is very real, but is not a change in the fundamental constant. And check out the wiki page on
Puthoff, he was involved with scientology and pseudoscience experiments on psychic powers. He is not someone you reference to lend credibility to an idea.
The rest of your post is a bunch of non-sequiters and logical leaps that aren't even worth discussing since you have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of interest in actually learning what the words you use mean.
This might all also be related to super cavitation which is used to push torpedos to high speeds in water.
This final sentence gives a good summary of how completely irrelevant your statements are. There is simply nothing that could possibly relate supercavitating torpedoes to the subject of this thread and if you think there is, you have very deep misunderstandings of fundamental aspects of the physics under discussion, and you need to go try to learn it from scratch after abandoning your preconceived notions.
-
#39
by
RSE
on 17 Apr, 2020 17:17
-
Mberbs, I don't agree with either your interpretation or the the video's interpretation. I would like to explain, in detail what I am trying to get across.
Point 1. Causality does not exist for a massless particle. A massless particle travels at C, according to the Lorenz transformation, and General Relativity, correct? At if it is traveling at C, time (t) = 0, according to its reference frame, correct? (And without time, there is no way to define distance, as well. Therefore no space, either.)
For duration to exist, t must be > 0. otherwise you have no duration. And for causality to exist, one has to have a sequence of durations (in a particular order). (which is the definition of causality).
So what we think of spacetime is only defined by, and measured by, particles with mass. Now, at C = infinity, there would be no spacetime for massed particles, as well. As the video pointed out, at C = infinity, the universe as we know it would not exist.
This leads to point 2.
Point 2. Is C necessarily a fixed constant? Certainly, quantum vacuum seems to be a constant across space and time, as massed particles are affected by it, but can the underlying quantum be manipulated in any way? If so, what happens to C?
To me, this is an absolutely valid question. One of the boundary conditions of Maxwell's Equations defines C in terms of permeability and permittivity of a vacuum. If those factors can be manipulated, even for a narrow band of electromagnetic frequencies, then measuring C through a field with a modified (lowered) permeability and permittivity would be a valid and important experiment.
Now it might be an expanded group velocity, or it might actually be a faster C without a wildly spread group velocity. This would not destroy the Lorenz transformation, merely expanding it by substituting the Maxwell's Equations boundary condition for C where C is located in the Lorenz transformation. Relativity and the Universe as we know it would merely be a subset of a larger physics, just like Newtonian mechanics is a subset of Relativity.
We now have the experimental method to test this possibility. Look in the box and find out.
Theory should never be used as a reason to not do an experiment.
