Aethelwulf

The kinetic momentum [math]\pi[/math] can just be written [math]\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\phi}}[/math]. This is the Canonical momentum to [math]\phi[/math]. The ordinary momentum term is just freely switched for [math]\pi[/math] even though they don't exactly describe the the same things. For instance, [math]\sum_i p_i(q) \rightarrow \int \pi(x) dx[/math]. I don't call it kinetic momentum, I tend to call it a field momentum.

I am pleased that this has generated some discussion from real physicists. I ask this because the possibility of faster than light information transmission should permit instantaneous communication with distant satellites and make unmanned interstellar exploration feasible. We still have to get the probe there and that would take time, but with entangled particles we could receive and transmit information instantaneously, with no loss of signal strength.

Signals in the form of energy cannot exceed the speed of light. There might have to be some kind of radical change however to accommodate entanglement in physics. We don't know what causes it, so maybe not all information is made of physical things?

The idea itself borders almost on the metaphysical nature of a vacuum - is there some underlying property we cannot measure? Some which has a tweak of determinism about it? What if the vacuum is a busy sheet of ethereal information which is not bound by speed or location?

If we can't even measure such a thing what good does it do physics to speak of such a thing? We certainly don't and can't measure a superluminal signal in the form of energy.

You made an apology on the radiation example. But you continued ''correcting'' me on saying that weak measurements and the zeno effect are not the same.

Let's drop it anyway, it's kind of deterring the OP.

Back to the question of energy, if matter is but a condensed form of energy, energy should be a diluted form of matter. But what does it mean when we say this? Sometimes it becomes like a chicken and egg question, is energy is a form of matter, or is matter a form of energy?

Indeed, are they just both forms of each other? The latter here makes more sense since we view this conventional question in the form of Einstein's equally conventional equation [math]E=Mc^2[/math].

Energy is somehow snared into some kind of transition which leads to mass - mass can be freed from this trapped form and brought back to energy again. If we where talking about antiparticles, it is reduced to gamma radiation every time.

I think the question of ''what is energy'' can not be fully understood with today's knowledge on physics. General Relativity attempts to answer parts of it, classical physics attempts to answer it in its own way, but it's one of those questions which still escapes a full answer.

Aethelwulf,

 

 

 

 

 

What is you native language my friend? It appears that you are using some words in English in an unfamiliar way. Your insights seem quite valuable, in my opinion, but based upon your use of some verbiage your meaning might be misinterpreted. Consider that possibility my friend

//

 

Now moving on:

 

(your quote) "..so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise...."

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

 

The validity of such a system does not stand alone. This system continues because of its seeming lack or variance compared to other time keeping systems before it and realize that some of the previous systems have not been dismantled. This system is thought to be the most consistent and accurate of such systems. If it were wrong by a septilionth of a second every thousand years, for instance, what difference would it make? Do you think that our accounting system of our man-made system of time-keeping has importance other than for science?

 

I like your enthusiastic inquiry into the possibilities of other science-based models, which I believe is generally lacking in most science educated people today. So keep up the inquiry, but first consider and study the mainstream model and try to understand it the best that you can before you logically try to consider alternative mainstream or other non-mainstream models/ hypotheses/ theories/ ideas, or develop your own ideas. When you have such knowledge I think your arguments will be more ineligible. what sayeth you?

 

//

I am an English native speaker, I was born in Yorkshire.

So I must ask, what is it about my speaking you can't understand? Was it the word ''freezing'' that threw you off?

I didn't just say ''freezing'' a system, I also said ''freezing the evolution of a system.'' If swansont had read it more carefully, the previous posts as well, he would have realized you had picked me up wrong and that I was not replying to you frivolously on the question of a motion of a system.

The word ''freezing'' in my terminology is simply the same word as ''suspending''.

''So keep up the inquiry, but first consider and study the mainstream model and try to understand it the best that you can before you logically try to consider alternative mainstream or other non-mainstream models/ hypotheses/ theories/ ideas, or develop your own ideas. When you have such knowledge I think your arguments will be more ineligible. what sayeth you?''

This is the problem, I do understand the current models - the use of time. I understand that Newtonian Time no longer has precedence when things like ''flows to time'' are considered. I also know that current quantum theory also does not see time have a flow, but rather is seen as a conglomeration of starts and stops. I probably have a very good grasp of relativity as well, both special and General theories, so I can certainly speak intelligently of time from its aspect.

So I am aware enough of time in current mainstream physics enough to know that the things I have said up to this point have been true.

____

 

 

 

 

 

You offered it up in response to a statement about motion.

You're going to need to read back. I said ''freezing a system due to observations made on a system'' when the poster took this to mean ''the zero point energy field.''

Indeed, I replied what I did explaining this has nothing to do with the zero point energy field, the type of freezing I was describing was something different altogether. This is the conversation in its entirity:

''''

Me: Yes, it is true that scientists often define time by radiating clocks, but you can essentially freeze an atom which is ready to give up all of its energy via the weak measurement theory. You can suspend an atom in time while ''time'' ticks on. So in a sense, I think its a mistake to think the two define each other.

Pantheory: To have a condition of no motion at all within matter generally would require a temperature of absolute zero, whereby this temperature may be theoretically unobtainable. Even at absolute zero matter still has spin to it, which involves measurable change. ''

Me: In my case, we are not talking about the absolute freezing of a system, we are talking about freezing the evolution of the system. An atom can be frozen by making weak measurements on the system, while we still expect time to truck on - so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise. You may think of my example as a priori. The name this goes by is the Zeno Effect of Quantum Mechanics. ''

Perhaps now you can see I was not talking about motion, they where - they where talking about motions when I was not.

They picked me up wrong, and now you have as well because you caught the tail end of a conversation.

Also, I've asked you to show me where I said ''the zeno effect and weak measurements'' where the same. You've not answered me, or offered an apology to this.

Furthermore, the effect keeps the atom is a particular state; it has nothing to directly do with its motion.

I also said nothing about its motion, I said it freezes its evolution. ''Quantum Evolution'' if you like, so I think you have picked me up wrong on a number of things.

Yes, the vacuum is made of an energy density. The community seems somewhat split on whether the universes energy density is truly constant. It may dilute over time, for instance. It's one of those questions we are ''not completely sure about''. Most theories however will entertain a constant energy density.

My mistake; radiation is in the definition. As you also state, the atoms define the time. But I did not adequately state my objection: you wrote about radiating clocks. Most clocks (in particular, cesium clocks) do not measure the radiation emitted by the cesium. They are passive devices.

 

 

 

Can be induced. They are still not the same thing. You can do weak measurement for non-Zeno effect experiments, and do Zeno-effect experiments which do not use weak measurements.

If you can show me where I said they are the same thing (weak measurements and the zeno effect) then it will be my turn to apologize.

The quantum Zeno effect is not the same thing as weak measurement. Furthermore, the effect keeps the atom is a particular state; it has nothing to directly do with its motion.

 

Radiation is not used to define time.

It's not the same thing, I thought they were related?

As for the radiation thing, I have seen people use the rate of radiation as a definition of change and define in on equal terms as ''time''.

(I just checked it up), they are related to a number of topics:

http://qserver.usc.edu/group/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/zeno-108.pdf

'' weak-measurement quantum Zeno effect (WMQZE).''

http://www.millitangent.org/pubs/08_double_well_zeno.pdf

''For weak measurements, this time may be much longer than the tunnelling time. For very strong measurements, there is no Zeno effect. ''

I am sure there is more papers that can be found, these where the first two results from my search.

Here is a reference to the radiation topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

'' of time, the second, is defined in terms of radiation emitted by caesium atoms ...''

The cesium atoms define the unit of time.

This is just trying to define time from natural clock systems, but as I have noted, things like atoms can be suspended in time through periodic measurements.

Here's a paper showing that the zeno effect can be induced by weak measurements http://www.arimizel.com/images/PhysRevB_73_085317.pdf

Which is absolutely what I mean.

Apurvmj's OP raises an interesting point though - why doesn''t light just travel instantaneously. Why must it go at a set speed of 300,000 kps?

 

Does this speed have some essential property, which the Universe needs in order to exist. Suppose light went at a faster speed, say 600,000 kps. Or at a very much slower speed, like 10 kps.

 

Would that make the Universe different - or even impossible?

Some authors have calculated the possibility of the speed of light varying over the years, such as Barrow, who calculated the speed of light to something like [math]10^{60}[/math] times the everyday speed of light, and put this down to the possibility of a changing density structure in the spacetime continuum.

The speed of light today depends on two properties of the vacuum, the permittivity and the the permeability - [math]c^{-1} = \sqrt{{\epsilon \mu}}[/math]. If you could change these, you can change the speed of light.

''"All-that-there-is in-the-universe" statements, in my opinion, are perspectives like every other description of reality from a particular point of view. ''<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">

Yes, but it's not a baseless opinion, in my opinion There are some good reasons to think he is right.

''To have a condition of no motion at all within matter generally would require a temperature of absolute zero, whereby this temperature may be theoretically unobtainable. Even at absolute zero matter still has spin to it, which involves measurable change. ''

In my case, we are not talking about the absolute freezing of a system, we are talking about freezing the evolution of the system. An atom can be frozen by making weak measurements on the system, while we still expect time to truck on - so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise. You may think of my example as a priori. The name this goes by is the Zeno Effect of Quantum Mechanics.

''I think the motion of the second hand on a clock can give a good sense of the rate that time passes, relative to the second. As to time being subjective, if you mean a human perspective of reality, then I would agree. ''

Yes, the clock is not an illusion, but it was constructed to mirror our ''sense of time''. There are gene regulators apparently, one for short range sense of time and one for the long sense range of time inside of the brain which can fully explain why we even have a sense of time at all.

Because of this, one must infer that time is a subjective experience and not a real component of the world around us. Again, one should not define time as a component of change - but rather a change in perception and the knowledge of the observer.

Sorry forgot about this...

''Time involves many different hypothesis, but maybe from the simplest perspective time is an interval of change.''

Yes, perhaps, but I don't think time should mean change. Indeed, Julian Barbour has explained in his own idea's, that all there is in the universe is change, but no time. He argues that time is not an observable and all we should deal with is observables... he says ''this is the way science should work''.

''Its observable physical motions are of matter and/or EM radiation. ''

Yes, it is true that scientists often define time by radiating clocks, but you can essentially freeze an atom which is ready to give up all of its energy via the weak measurement theory. You can suspend an atom in time while ''time'' ticks on. So in a sense, I think its a mistake to think the two define each other.

''In the same way I consider time to be a measurement of changing conditions and locations. What say you''

Well, as I explained, time isn't an observable - it's only a tool we use to measure things passing. There does not seem to be any conclusive evidence that time is anything but a subjective phenomenon, which scientists often call the psychological arrow of time.

Sorry I never answered sooner, I was suffering from a bad fever recently and have not posted here as much.

I think there is a huge mega-verse that contains creatures vast beyond imagining that consume dark matter and excrete universes. Their digestive systems turn dark matter into normal matter but the process, much like any grazer, is inefficient, so most of the dark matter comes back out with just a small fraction of normal matter....

Oh my... is all I can.

No, it absolutely does not.

I am sorry, I misread him.

I realize he is wanting to talk about superluminal inference of information, when I thought he was arguing against it. This was why I mentioned John Bell, because he gave himself ways around that problem:

''There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be''

Of course, is is superdeterminism which is not the consensus. I've never heard anyone really talk about it other than John Bell.

Funnily, I actually had a dream on entanglement last night. The spin of two particles where always known at the moment of their creation. Which is kind of an odd thought, but would seem to agree with the John Bell example.

I obviously don't take dreams as facts though, was just a weird experience is all

 

One final note: If you want to study this stuff in detail, I suggest you get a book (or take a course) on modern algebra or abstract algebra. Note well: I'm not talking kiddie algebra here. I'm talking about the algebra class (classes) that math majors take in college after they've taken multiple calculus courses and a class or two in analysis.

I think I could handle it, so whenever there is a chance for my to study absract algebra covering these topics,I will

Thank you again.

Negative pressure isn't negative energy. E.g. would you consider tension on a rope to be negative energy?

I guess not.

Ok, had a read about Sedenions.

Now you say that you can go on forever, but from a different source I heard you can't get any higher than the Cayley Numbers --- which I was informed, had something to do with the Division Ring, so I am guessing something is a bit wrong here?

Thanks DH for helping me understand this.

I said I would have been right back, but I got held up and I ended up doing something else... I will get back to this later! Promise.

?

If you mean Dark Energy - it is about 70pct of the universe but surely Dark Energy DNE Negative Energy

Is it 70%, sorry... but yeah, we generally think it has a negative pressure, so it could be seen as a form of negative energy. It certainly has the properties we'd expect.

I am not a physicist. I don't begin to have the math aptitude to become a physicist. But I think about it a lot, from a philosophical perspective.

 

I read in the news recently about a method for generating fairly large numbers of entangled particles. Here is a link to a New York Times article on the topic: Billions of entangled particles advance quantum computing.

 

 

Because the entanglement does not require that the particles be anywhere near each other, doesn't that make it possible to use entangled particles to transmit information instantaneously and therefore, faster than the speed of light?

Yes it makes it possible but this is not the general consensus.... but John Bell certainly realized that was a possibility.

I'll try and answer this tomorrow, because your questions are certainly not light

Plus it is late for me... so I need a fresh brain.

Sedenions>??

Argghhh...this is something I have not heard of...will be back soon

The Alcubierre metric would require negative energy - something which (outside of stuff like the Casimir effect) nobody is sure even exists.

Yes... that is one requirement. Keep in mind that things like wormholes require them as well, so such a treatment is not outside of theoretical physics... indeed, physicists believe that at least 60% of the universe is made of such a negative energy.

Aethelwulf,

 

 

Time involves many different hypothesis, but maybe from the simplest perspective time is an interval of change. Its observable physical motions are of matter and/or EM radiation. Its measurement is via standard measuring tools which we call a clocks, which are of many different designs. Since time is an interval, the clock requires an actuated beginning and ending to it. A clock's measured intervals are a comparative measurement of change, like a ruler is to length, for instance.

 

 

In the concepts of Special Relativity, the energy of motion or inertia are solely from a relative perspective, and have no reality to them. The energy of EM radiation is based upon the relative speed (the speed of light) to the background gravitational field which contains it, as in General Relativity. In both cases their would be nothing physical to it. Many things are not either true or false but can involve one or more differing perspectives.

 

From the perspective that EM radiation is physical, one might argue that theoretically photons are considered substantive and therefore are physical. I see nothing wrong with this perspective or argument. But I think concerning relative motion, it is a condition described by changing locations rather than something physical. In the same way I consider time to be a measurement of changing conditions and locations. What say you

You certainly give one to have much to debate, that is what one says I will be right back.

So, it is hard to decide where this should be... quantum theory seems best but it may cover many topics.

So, what problems face unification. I will be aware of many problems brought up, but I am interested in the different opinions by the posters here. I will post my own after a healthy dose of other contributions... trust me though, the problems are much vaster than those just lying with quantum gravity.

Enjoy for now.