Thread: Quantum teleportation across 10 miles

1. How would we even know if the sun's gravity wasn't faster than the speed of light if we are unable to create mass enough to make gravity in that magnitude?

If gravity is some type of thing emitted from the sun due to its mass, we might just not have the technology to replicate or measure it. Doesn't mean that it's necessarily faster than the speed of light. 2. Interesting that gravity is still so mysterious. I heard earlier today (some radio thing about Higg's particles) that mass is not understood either (what gives a proton/neutron and other particles mass, and specific masses at that). 3. Originally Posted by MK27 I understand your little mantra, but you are conceptualizing incorrectly. Again, gravity. The reason the effect of gravity is "instantaneous" is that it is already here. But again, if a sufficient mass were to disappear (which is not possible according to the laws of physics, so your information is still bound), it would not be here. Instantly.

Hmm, but the change takes place at the same time -- it does not travel from one photon to the other.

Okay, I had not heard of this one. So gravity remains a mystery and this is an untestable hypothesis (the instantaneousness), what about the entangled particles? Is information transmitted via some connection, or not? I think that possibility is the only thing I find intriguing here...
Well, I'm no physicist (although I have spent quite a bit of time hanging around the sweaty lot of them (no offense, but almost universally true)), but the general idea is this:

Mass is a condensed form of energy (eg: "light", or electromagnetic radiation), and the quantitive relationship between the two can be precisely described in terms of the speed of light (E=MC^2, Einstein's mass-energy equivalence). Mass (and hence condensed "light") generates a gravitational field (an apparent acceleration), and acceleration generates mass (Einstein's gravity-acceleration equivalence). Their exact values are directly dependant on their Lorentz factor (1/sqrt(1-V^2/C^2)), also described in terms of the speed of light. Logically, then, light, mass, and gravity are essentially equivalent, and so it stands to reason that they must *all* be governed by the speed of light. Okay, so that doesn't actually prove that the distortion of space-time (that is gravity) propagates at the speed of light, per se, but it does describe (more or less) the underlying correlation used by the real mathematicians to deduce that it's value is, in fact, precisely C. 4. Originally Posted by Sebastiani Mass is a condensed form of energy (eg: "light", or electromagnetic radiation), and the quantitive relationship between the two can be precisely described in terms of the speed of light (E=MC^2, Einstein's mass-energy equivalence).
Really? That was my impression once upon a time too, altho I have never seen anyone else express it this way, and a while back realized I don't have time to be seriously interested in post newtonian physics. "Mass energy equivalence" does not necessary mean that mass is energy from a conventional perspective -- PSI is not air. Unless you look at it right, I guess.

Okay, so that doesn't actually prove that the distortion of space-time (that is gravity) propagates at the speed of light, per se, but it does describe (more or less) the underlying correlation used by the real mathematicians to deduce that it's value is, in fact, precisely C.
I had another philosophy descended from the "mass is energy" one whereby light didn't have any speed at all and there was no such thing as empty space, there was just light as a medium permitting spacial and temporal (hence the "speed") relations. E=MC^2 would represent a logical barrier in the same way that it already does, or that three dimensions represented a logical barrier. And atomic particles are nodes, of course.

Then I realized I would have to study physics in order to take or present myself seriously and that it wasn't worth it because I wasn't trying to change the rules, just spin them differently. I am kind of cringing from this philosophy now but still see some kind of merit there...I don't think understanding atomic particles as nodes is too far off accepted norms, if you can say "mass is energy" in good company. 5. Originally Posted by MK27 Really? That was my impression once upon a time too, altho I have never seen anyone else express it this way, and a while back realized I don't have time to be seriously interested in post newtonian physics. "Mass energy equivalence" does not necessary mean that mass is energy from a conventional perspective -- PSI is not air.
Of course they're equivalent - how do you think that stars work? They convert mass into energy! Originally Posted by MK27 I had another philosophy descended from the "mass is energy" one whereby light didn't have any speed at all and there was no such thing as empty space, there was just light as a medium permitting spacial and temporal (hence the "speed") relations. E=MC^2 would represent a logical barrier in the same way that it already does, or that three dimensions represented a logical barrier. And atomic particles are nodes, of course.
Interesting! I have actually thought the very same thing (but haven't been able to formulate it so concisely). If my math skills weren't so mediocre, I'd probably pursue a theoretical solution to the problem. Unfortunately, being something of an idiot savant, I'm going to have to settle with "having a hunch".  6. E=mc²
Actually, it should be E²=(mc²)² which turns out to be E=[+-]mc².

I heard earlier today (some radio thing about Higg's particles) that mass is not understood either (what gives a proton/neutron and other particles mass, and specific masses at that)
I hope the recent CERN experiment will take us further. We are about the same level on quantum mechanics as decades ago. 7. Originally Posted by Brafil Actually, it should be E²=(mc²)² which turns out to be E=[+-]mc².
Let me guess - that adjustment must be to account for anti-matter? Or what? 8. Right. Although that is something I have never fully grasped... 9. I'm not a physicist by a long shot. But I seriously doubt that anti-matter energy would be governed by a mass-energy equivalence rules that re the opposite for those of mass. Not even sure why it should. It's perfectly acceptable it shouldn't.

Not only that would introduce even further difficulties to the baryon asymmetry problem, but it also contradicts the experiments in laboratory that need to slow down antimatter particles in order to reduce their energy (Antihydrogen production). 10. Negative energy doesn't mean negative mass if you meant that. It should be the absolute value of the mass.

Altho I'm not sure about that asymmetry. Wasn't it that certain things just were asymmetric? For example Kaon fission and the weak force? 11. Originally Posted by Brafil Negative energy doesn't mean negative mass if you meant that. It should be the absolute value of the mass
You lost me there.
Please use E=[+-]mc² applied to an antimatter particle to demonstrate to me how reducing velocity cools down that particle.

Altho I'm not sure about that asymmetry. Wasn't it that certain things just were asymmetric? For example Kaon fission and the weak force?
Err... "some things just are" is no scientific explanation. 12. You guys are so far over my head I can't even see where you are. 13. Err... "some things just are" is no scientific explanation.
Hmm... seems quite right. But really, some things just are without us knowing why.

Please use E=mc² applied to an antimatter particle to demonstrate to me how reducing velocity cools down that particle.
Einstein stated that E=mc². Every object carries energy related to its mass. Nice idea.

Then some other scientists found that we also have to consider kinetic energy, so the formula
became:

E²=m²c^4 + p²c². (p = impulse)

which includes moving objects. That is more complicated, but true. Then they simplified things:

E=sqrt(m²c^4 + p²c²)

which returns a nice value of energy. Seems right at first. But a brilliant man called Dirac saw it was wrong and told us that

E=+-sqrt(m²c^4 + p²c²)

Energy is can be positive or negative. So "no energy" is not the minimum of energy there is. That guy noticed that everywhere where we think is nothing, there are many many particles exactly the same as those we know (electrons, protons etc.) just with negative energy. These are negative particles with negative energy.

NORMAL PARTICLES

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 3 JOULE
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 2 JOULE
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 1 JOULE
--------------------------------------------- 0 JOULE
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo -1 JOULE
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -2 JOULE
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo -3 JOULE

NEGATIVE PARTICLES

Now, if you bundle a very large amount of energy onto one place, then one of these negative particles gets it and jumps into the normal world, becoming a normal particle.

-energy + very large amount of energy = +energy

But it has left a hole where it was. If the particle was an electron, then a bit of negative charge has disappeared from the hole, it has been subtracted. If an electron disappears, it leaves a positive charge there, maybe some of you remember that from chemistry. So the hole has a positive charge.

If you now move an electron to the hole, it sees it and jumps directly into it. For that it has to give away its energy:

+energy - 2 * energy = -energy

The hole is filled and left is a huge amount of energy, the same amount that our escaping electron got.

Let's get back to E=+-sqrt(m²c^4 + p²c²)
If you reduce the velocity, that means the impulse of a particle, you reduce the magnitude of the energy. If the energy is positive (matter), the energy decreases. If it's negative (antimatter), it increases since its magnitude, distance from zero, decreases.

Whoops, what's that? Slowing down antimatter increases energy? Now I lost myself...

Maybe we'd get back to 1 + 1 = 2 and why void main() is wrong. 14. Originally Posted by Bubba You guys are so far over my head I can't even see where you are.
Well, it just what I think is the constant desire to take the notion antimatter a little too far.

The idea that E=[+-]mc² implies the existence of a notion of negative complements to mass, speed and energy, right?. In itself an hard thought to swallow, after all, how does something move at a negative speed, or how does something have a negative mass? But observations aside, it is being used here as a property of anti-matter.

But antimatter is demonstrated to follow the exact same rules as matter. Its exotic nature is simply the existence of complementary charges. And just that. So, where we have electrons, antimatter has protons and where we have protons, antimatter has electrons (the names are different, but allow me the simplification).

I think there is some comfort in the thought that anti-matter is the exact opposite of matter, and that this reflects on all aspects, including energy, mass, and what have you. It makes it even more exotic. But it's just not so. Antimatter cools down (looses energy) the slower it travels. The higher its mass, the more it heats, etc. Just like with matter.

It's only when we interact matter with anti-matter that the alien nature (for us) of anti-matter is revealed. Otherwise, if anti-matter followed different rules than matter, we could observe anti-matter in the universe by other means than just witnessing these interactions. For instance we could observe anti-matter by just measuring a bright anti-matter star mass and realize it was smaller than a pea. But there are no bright stars smaller than a pea.

In any case, in laboratory, and when constructing anti-matter atoms we have to cool down the resulting anti-matter atom by slowing it down and finally be able to trap it in a magnetic field. A clear evidence that E= mc² is in work. 15. Originally Posted by Brafil Then some other scientists found that we also have to consider kinetic energy,
Whoa! Stop right there. This is where is your mistake in my opinion. And now I'm understand what I believe is the confusion you are making here.

The e=mc2 formula is just to be applied to rest mass. Kinetic energy requires a conversion formula. And of course, you cannot then expect to turn that conversion formula into some kind of new rules to rest mass. Rest mass-energy and kinetic mass-energy are two different things. Originally Posted by Brafil
Hmm... seems quite right. But really, some things just are without us knowing why.
Sorry, but.. what!?
Is that how you think science has developed? Popular pages Recent additions 