So was Einstein wrong then?
Posted by: manicatel on 17 August 2007
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by JamieWednesday
Right now, probably not. In decades/centuries to come, probably.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
So was Einstein wrong then?
Relatively speaking - perhaps, but there's uncertainty about it.
Or as the great physicist, Robert Calvert once said
Einstein was not a handsome fellow
Nobody ever called him Al
He had a long moustache to pull on
It was yellow
I don't believe he ever had a girl
One thing he missed out in his theory
of time, space and relativity
Is something that makes it very clear
He was never gonna score like you'n'me
He didn't know about Quark, Strangeness and Charm
I had a dangerous liason
To have been found out would've been a disgrace
We had to rendezvous some mesons
On the corner of an undiscovered place
We got sick of chat chat chatter and the
look upon everybody's face
But all that does not anti-matter now
We've found ourselves a black hole in space
And we're talking about Quark, Strangeness and Charm
Copernicus had those Renaissance ladies
Crazy about his telescope
And Galileo had a name that made his
reputation higher than his hopes
Did none of those astronomers discover
While they were staring out into the dark
That what a lady looks for in her lover
is Charm, Strangeness and Quark.Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Deane F
Newton wasn't wrong, nor was Einstein.
They just weren't completely right....
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Rasher
They were right, but they probably overlooked adding the clause "within the same dimension".
When or if a photon gets to travel beyond the speed of light, then it has to travel within another parallel dimension - parallel because it has to make the jump both ways. Like if you have two trains running side by side but one is going faster than the other, you could jump from the back of the slower train onto the faster one, and jump back when you reach the front of the slower one. The time travel isn't the difficult part, it's making the jump at the beginning and the end that is the tricky part. The people on the slower train just see you disappear from the slower train at the back and appear a moment later at the front - they don't see what you did to get there. They hadn't figured on there being another parallel train.
Einstein's law is true, but it isn't multi-dimensional. It just shows where the boundaries are in a single dimension.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
Does quantum physics allow a particle to exist in 2 different places at the same time?
If so, then what is reported might prove that and if that is the case there is no issue about faster than light travel because nothing has travelled anywhere.
And wasn't Einstein's point that nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light, not that speeds in excess of light are impossible?
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Does quantum physics allow a particle to exist in 2 different places at the same time?
If so, then what is reported might prove that and if that is the case there is no issue about faster than light travel because nothing has travelled anywhere.
Just because you can't see the gap doesn't necessarily mean that something didn't happen outside of your perspective.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
It does not mean that it did either...
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Rasher
Quite. I think that's part of the problem.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Rasher
Nothing can exist in two places at once, as the quantity of matter within the universe has to have a required value for stability (I think).
Actually that's bollocks, as if it's in another dimension, then it isn't relative. I'm confusing myself now!
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Does quantum physics allow a particle to exist in 2 different places at the same time?
Two quarks can occupy the same place at the same time.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Don Atkinson
The universe is the way it is.
Both Newton and Einstein developed good theories about how the universe works and gave us good, simple mathematical expressions to enable us to predict what will happen next - within fairly practical limits for quite a lot of things.
I doubt if either Newton or Einstein were ever absolutely right with respect to their own fields of endeavor, and neither of them presented a theory of everything.
cheers
Don
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
[QUOTE] Does quantum physics allow a particle to exist in 2 different places at the same time?
Yes
quote:
If so, then what is reported might prove that and if that is the case there is no issue about faster than light travel because nothing has travelled anywhere.
Yes
quote:
And wasn't Einstein's point that nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light, not that speeds in excess of light are impossible?
Yes.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
They were right, but they probably overlooked adding the clause "within the same dimension".
When or if a photon gets to travel beyond the speed of light, then it has to travel within another parallel dimension - parallel because it has to make the jump both ways. Like if you have two trains running side by side but one is going faster than the other, you could jump from the back of the slower train onto the faster one, and jump back when you reach the front of the slower one. The time travel isn't the difficult part, it's making the jump at the beginning and the end that is the tricky part. The people on the slower train just see you disappear from the slower train at the back and appear a moment later at the front - they don't see what you did to get there. They hadn't figured on there being another parallel train.
Einstein's law is true, but it isn't multi-dimensional. It just shows where the boundaries are in a single dimension.
I think this whiffs suspisciously of the Multi-Worlds interpratation of quantun theory but there aint no evidence for this interpretation whatsoever. Furthermore descriptions of this interpretation are philosophically unsound. How can it make sense for the same SELF to exist in all worlds when the worlds are constatly branching away from each other? This is at least a misuse of language. If these worlds were actually branching away from each other all the time the identities of any SELF must be changing. So when does a SELF become a NOT-SELF? The reason for the multi-worlds theory is that physicists A/ dont like the idea of the collpase of the wave function B/ Are addicted to science fiction. It is thought that the collpase of the wave function can not be accounted for, however there is a perfectly good excplanation for it.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Rasher
Whoa!! No I don't subscribe to that. I'm not suggesting that two selves can exist at the same time, but that a possibility exists of parallel dimensions that it would be possible to access. Linear time has to remain with the object or person in question and not with the viewer in a single dimension. Like watching an object fall into a black hole where time slows down and creates a difference between the objects conception of time and the viewers.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by ianmacd
quote:
I think this whiffs suspisciously of the Multi-Worlds interpratation of quantun theory but there aint no evidence for this interpretation whatsoever. Furthermore descriptions of this interpretation are philosophically unsound. How can it make sense for the same SELF to exist in all worlds when the worlds are constatly branching away from each other? This is at least a misuse of language. If these worlds were actually branching away from each other all the time the identities of any SELF must be changing. So when does a SELF become a NOT-SELF? The reason for the multi-worlds theory is that physicists A/ dont like the idea of the collpase of the wave function B/ Are addicted to science fiction. It is thought that the collpase of the wave function can not be accounted for, however there is a perfectly good excplanation for it.
I admit it, you're intelligence is much higher than mine because I haven't got a clue what you are talking about or what point you are trying to make, the only thing I can do in my simple little brain is spell correctly.
Forgive me, but you do come across as, dare I say it, a bit of a smart arse. Reading your posts, you seem to have an aggressively expressed superiority complex over whoever or whatever it is that you are answering.
If I am wrong, please enlighten me without reducing me to pond life, eh, Acad?
Ian
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Deane F
There's some sort of strange attraction going on here. ianmacd keeps declaring things about Acad Tsunami's personality. It's like some sort of obsession. It's even crossed thread boundaries now - a bit like stalking.
If I am wrong, please enlighten me without reducing me to pond life, eh, Ian?
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by Rasher:
Whoa!! No I don't subscribe to that. I'm not suggesting that two selves can exist at the same time, but that a possibility exists of parallel dimensions that it would be possible to access. Linear time has to remain with the object or person in question and not with the viewer in a single dimension. Like watching an object fall into a black hole where time slows down and creates a difference between the objects conception of time and the viewers.
Rasher,
Sorry to accuse you of being a closet multi-world theory supporter
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by acad tsunami
Dear Ianmacd,
There are spelling mistakes and there are typos. Using a laptop with hands recovering from recent finger dislocations increases the chances of the latter. I am pleased to hear about your ability to spell correctly.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by ROTF:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Does quantum physics allow a particle to exist in 2 different places at the same time?
Two quarks can occupy the same place at the same time.
I was reading 'In search of superstrings' written by physicist John Gribben today who said something interesting about quarks.
'It reminds us that
all of our models of fundamental particles and their interactions are no more than artificial aids to help us get a picture of what is going on in terms that seem familiar or at least recognisable from every day life. But it is ironic that as the quark model has become increasingly well established in recent years many accounts of particle physics seem to have lost sight of the fact that even the best of our models are no more than aids to the imagination and their accounts have began to present an image of protons, neutrons and the rest as made up of 'real' little hard lumps, the quarks which rattle around inside of what we used to think of as the fundamental particles. The image is beguilingly reminiscent of the earlier vision of the atom as being made up of little hard lumps - electrons - protons and neutrons - and it is just as inaccurate.
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by John Channing
quote:
And wasn't Einstein's point that nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light, not that speeds in excess of light are impossible?
Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
John
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by droodzilla
quote:
It is thought that the collpase of the wave function can not be accounted for, however there is a perfectly good excplanation for it.
Acad - this refers, as I'm sure you know, to one of the fundamental questions in physics - if you have an explanation for the collapse of the wave function, you better tell us quick. The nobel prize awaits!
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:
I was reading 'In search of superstrings' written by physicist John Gribben today who said something interesting about quarks.
'It reminds us that all of our models of fundamental particles and their interactions are no more than artificial aids to help us get a picture of what is going on in terms that seem familiar or at least recognisable from every day life. But it is ironic that as the quark model has become increasingly well established in recent years many accounts of particle physics seem to have lost sight of the fact that even the best of our models are no more than aids to the imagination and their accounts have began to present an image of protons, neutrons and the rest as made up of 'real' little hard lumps, the quarks which rattle around inside of what we used to think of as the fundamental particles. The image is beguilingly reminiscent of the earlier vision of the atom as being made up of little hard lumps - electrons - protons and neutrons - and it is just as inaccurate.
Well said, John Gribben. One of the more sensible comments ever posted on this forum.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 17 August 2007 by acad tsunami
Droo,
Explaining it and proving it in an acceptable way to scientists who would rather entertain the most outlandish theory rather than accept consciousness as primary in the universe are, alas, two different challenges. A Nobel prize would be nice though.
Posted on: 18 August 2007 by BigH47
This is strange,the disscussion is going up and down, views from top to bottom it's quite charming. Me I'm going to Quarks for a drink,although on which plane of the multiverse I'll be on is anyones guess.
That's it all wrapped up and tied with theoretical string.
howard
Posted on: 18 August 2007 by Deane F
Trust Howard to bring up string theory...
