Free Republic Browse · Search News/Activism Topics · Post Article

Scientists Transfer Info Between Atoms (Star Trek Teleportation is REAL!)
Local 6 News ^ | 6-16-2004 | AP

Posted on 06/16/2004 1:54:18 PM PDT by vannrox

first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-312 next last
To: spodefly
I have two pressing Star Trek questions:

Is Warp 1 equal to the speed of light?

When they go to warp 10, how do they keep from getting plastered to the wall during acceleration?

151 posted on 06/16/2004 7:34:03 PM PDT by dc27

To: vannrox

If this is achieved, we should first teleport Islamo-fascists to the moon, or perhaps Mars, with no way of being teleported back.

152 posted on 06/16/2004 7:39:12 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued

To: spodefly

"Beam me a broad!"

153 posted on 06/16/2004 7:51:32 PM PDT by Yehuda (http://PostNineEleven.blogspot.com/)

To: dc27
Well, you forced me to go pull out the Technical Manual, but here ya go (short answer, yes):

WARP POWER MEASUREMENT

The cochrane is the unit used to measure subspace field stress. Cochranes are also used to measure field distortion generated by other spatial manipulation devices, including tractor beams, deflectors, and synthetic gravity fields. Fields below Warp 1 are measured in millicochranes.

A subspace field of one thousand millicochranes or greater becomes the familiar warp field. Field intensity for each warp factor increases geometrically and is a function of the total of the individual field layer values. Note that the cochrane value for a given warp factor corresponds to the apparent velocity of a spacecraft traveling at that warp factor. For example, a ship traveling at Warp Factor 3 is maintaining a warp field of at least 39 cochranes and is therefore traveling at 39 c, the speed of light. Approximate values for integer warp factors are:

 Warp Factor 1 = 1 cochrane Warp Factor 2 = 10 cochranes Warp Factor 3 = 39 cochranes Warp Factor 4 = 102 cochranes Warp Factor 5 = 214 cochranes Warp Factor 6 = 392 cochranes Warp Factor 7 = 656 cochranes Warp Factor 8 = 1024 cochranes Warp Factor 9 = 1516 cochranes

The actual values are dependent upon interstellar conditions, e.g., gas density, electric and magnetic fields within the different regions of the Milky Way galaxy, and fluctuations in the subspace domain. Starships routinely travel at multiples of c, but they suffer from energy penalties resulting from quantum drag forces and motive power oscillation inefficiencies.

*******

The short answer to your second question is that the starship's local velocity does not change in the course of shifting from one warp speed to a higher warp speed, but rather the time dilation effect of the warp field is modulated to produce the swifter transit.

154 posted on 06/16/2004 8:14:38 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: dc27
Opps! There is a potentially misleading typo in the exact sentence that's most relevent:

For example, a ship traveling at Warp Factor 3 is maintaining a warp field of at least 39 cochranes and is therefore traveling at 39 times c, the speed of light.

155 posted on 06/16/2004 8:17:59 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: vannrox

Shades of the Fly.

I don't want to be first.

156 posted on 06/16/2004 8:19:31 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (What do they call children in Palestine? Unexploded ordinance)

To: PatrickHenry

157 posted on 06/16/2004 8:33:08 PM PDT by GOPJ

To: Little Ray; All

"Assuming a 150 lb person, you would yield ~1636.36 megatons."

You can double the yield by having said subject eat a can of Bush's Baked Beans(I'm not slamming the president!) before said energy release of said subject. You get the added benefit of nuclear and gas WMD attack!

158 posted on 06/16/2004 10:47:36 PM PDT by mdmathis6 (The Democrats must be defeated in 2004)

bump for later

159 posted on 06/16/2004 11:01:24 PM PDT by Annie03 (donate at www.terrisfight.org)

To: AntiGuv

Thanks! Now I can sleep well tonight.

160 posted on 06/16/2004 11:16:10 PM PDT by dc27

To: B Knotts; PatrickHenry; Physicist; longshadow; Junior; Buggman

OK, here is the deal: I don't know what the deal is! To be more exact, the specific examples given here do not violate causality of their own accord but causality is violated nonetheless. Here, I'll explain.

This would be a lot easier if I could sketch it out as a visual, but I'll do the best I can (which isn't anything to get excited about..) First of all, in both instances - superluminal communication between 'stationary' locations or superluminal communication between locations moving apart at a 99% luminal velocity - we are only dealing with one inertial frame. Rather than think of temporal events along a unilinear progression, it is more apt to place them on a 'space-time' grid traversed by our two intrepid communicators.

Now, think of two parallel lines on that grid. The first line is earth and the second line is our starship moving away from earth at 99% luminal speed. Now, both lines begin on July 1 when our starship leaves the earth. As the starship bebops along into the great unknown, the effects of time dilation essentially begin to 'compress' time on the starship as observed from the earth's frame of reference.

OK, so now let's draw a line perpendicular to our two parallel lines. This line will represent our first superluminal communication. Now the point at which this line intersects Earth's temporal trajectory is July 4, but due to the time dilation effect, the intersection time on our starship is now July 3. OK, so our hysterical Earthling sends out her signal: "Terrible news! President Hillary Clinton assassinated! USA in mourning." Timestamp: 12:00 noon July 4. However, the time on your starship clock reads 12:00 noon July 3. You think to yourself, 'Oh, cool! I've already added a day to my life!' =)

Now, naturally, you send a signal back to Earth as swiftly as your trembling fingers can type: "Mourning?! Oh, please. Get a grip!" Now, let's draw another line across our grid perpendicular to our two parallel communicators to represent this subspace reply communique. As should be clear now, this does not create any causality problem. Indeed, Hillary-mourning Earth bimbo won't receive the message on her July 2; she's probably going to receive it on July 5 or 6!

The dreadful fallacy in that original post was precisely that: you fail to have NO privileged reference frames! Quite to the contrary, you alternate privileging one reference frame and then the other depending on who is transmitting a communication. Instead, our space-time grid represents the single inertial frame that encompasses both of our ansibles. It does not favor the reference frame of either. Instead, it represents the time dilation by progressively 'compressing' the movement of space-time at a given rate along the continuum of our starship as viewed from the vantage point of Earth.

You could accomplish the same effect by progressively 'elongating' the movement of space-time at a steady rate along the Earthling continuum as viewed from the starship's vantage point or by varying both rates as a steady function of one another. The relevant point being is that while our "instantaneous" superluminal communication does not in fact appear instantaneous to either as perceived by either vantage point, this is because the communique is itself exhibiting the perceptual time dilation effects instructed by special relativity.

It makes no difference if we instead conceptualize two ansibles on separate starships moving away from one another, because then we are merely replacing one inertial frame with another. The same is true if we are imagining two 'stationary' transmitters in separate star systems; they are operating along one inertial frame in relation to one another. The single inertial frame cannot twist in such a way as to make events in one locale's absolute future appear to be in that locale's past.

So, we've solved our causality problem, right? WRONG! As soon as another inertial frame is introduced - a third observer along a separate space-time 'trajectory' - *then* we've got the causality problems when they interact in tandem. So, basically what it comes down to is that we can only have one starship travelling at warp speed at any given moment - or else the universe collapses in a big crunch... =)

My solution is to declare that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. If that's good enough for Einstein it's more than good enough for me!!

Anyone should feel free to please correct any stupidity that crept into my post..

161 posted on 06/17/2004 12:26:16 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: Buggman
[Acceleration always slows a clock down.] "Acceleration" according to what viewpoint?

Anyone's. Of course, the fact that your clocks are slowing down is something you'd notice only if you compared clocks with some other frame of reference, as in the earlier example of the traveler who returns to earth and compares his clock with one that had originally been in sync with it before his departure.

And if the effect of any acceleration in any direction is to always see the other clock as slowing down, wouldn't that cause light from the other source to seem to be moving faster or slower than c (an effect that relativistic effects are supposed to cancel out, so that all parties always observe light from every source to be precisely c)?

Lightspeed is always seen the same, in all frames of reference. That's what makes it essential for clocks to slow down.

162 posted on 06/17/2004 4:04:08 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)

To: AntiGuv
The dreadful fallacy in that original post [by PatrickHenry, post #119] was precisely that: you fail to have NO privileged reference frames! Quite to the contrary, you alternate privileging one reference frame and then the other depending on who is transmitting a communication. Instead, our space-time grid represents the single inertial frame that encompasses both of our ansibles.

Disagreements in these things almost always involve misunderstandings about the various frames of reference. I think the ship and the earth are most definitely two different frames of reference. If you see them as one (because of their instantaneous communications system), this isn't unreasonable. Such a communications system would definitely throw everything that we know out the window. As observers in the same frame of reference -- neither is accelerating away from the other, and their clocks will remain in sync. Except it wouldn't happen that way.

163 posted on 06/17/2004 4:18:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)

To: feinswinesuksass; All

I can't believe how many Firesign Theatre fans there are here. I could ask a hundred people I know and not one (outside of my family) would know about it.

164 posted on 06/17/2004 5:50:50 AM PDT by techcor

To: AntiGuv; B Knotts; PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer; longshadow; Junior; Buggman
Sorry, but that's all wrong. A long time ago I worked out a quantitative example of exactly this problem, and posted it to FreeRepublic, but I'm dished if I can find it. (If anyone out there can help...) Unfortunately, I don't have time to work out another one just now.

The problem is that there are two reference frames in the problem, and events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference cannot be simultaneous in the other frame.

If we plot events on a grid where the x-axis is space and the y-axis is time as measured in one of the frames, we can use the same placement of the events as seen from the other frame, but the axes will be different for that frame. It's tricky to visualize, but the x and y axes will "scizzors" towards each other (meeting at the 45° line as the velocity approaches the speed of light).

[Geek alert: These coordinate systems differ by a hyperbolic transformation. There's another way to represent this that used to be more popular: if you multiply time by i, the square root of negative one, you can plot things in terms of this imaginary time quantity. Then the Lorentz transformation, as I describe it here, is merely a rotation. In other words, the coordinate systems of the two interlocutors are simply rotated with respect to one another in imaginary spacetime. This description, while mathematically equivalent, can be problematic for students, because while you can visualize time, and (with practice) a hyperbolic transformation, you can't visualize "imaginary time".]

You'll notice that the "travelling frame's" x-axis (which you can think of as the "axis of simultaneity") is now cocked at an angle in spacetime, with respect to the x-axis of the "stationary frame". As this axis of simultaneity is extrapolated back in the direction of the origin, it dips backwards along the time axis of the stationary frame. The more distant the conversation, the more pronounced the effect.

To recap: The Earthbound transmitter sends an instantaneous signal at time T to the traveller, who receives it at time T'. T and T' are simultaneous in the Earth's frame, but T' is simultaneous with a time earlier than T in the traveller's frame.

As long as the signal goes no faster than light, there's no way for the response to arrive before the first signal was sent.

I really should work out another example, along with some graphics that show explicitly what happens and why. If I do, I'll post it and ping you, but it won't be soon.

165 posted on 06/17/2004 6:34:43 AM PDT by Physicist

To: Physicist

Maybe I cut back on my alcohol consumption too early...

166 posted on 06/17/2004 6:36:52 AM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)

To: vannrox
Just think......

I need a tooth pulled.....don't worry...we'll telleport all of you except your tooth.

Or how about...Man that guy sure has bad gas.Don't worry...we'll telleport him except for his butt.

167 posted on 06/17/2004 6:42:02 AM PDT by Radioactive

To: Physicist
A long time ago I worked out a quantitative example of exactly this problem, and posted it to FreeRepublic, but I'm dished if I can find it. (If anyone out there can help...)

Some old Physicist posts:

Just after the stroke of midnight on January 1, 3000, a tachyon beam signal, travelling at four times the speed of light, is sent from Earth towards the starship Tempus Fugitive. The message is "Ping!" At the time the message is sent, the ship is 0.8 light years from Earth, travelling at a speed of 0.8 times the speed of light.

By the time the tachyon signal reaches the starship, it is 1 light year away, as measured from the Earth. But on the Tempus Fugitive, the Earth is only 0.6 light years away (Lorentz contraction).

The date of this event is April 1, 3000, just after 6:00 AM, as measured on Earth. But in the reference frame of the starship, this event is contemporaneous with events taking place on the morning of January 30, 2999 on Earth (frame dependence of simultaneity). [Geek alert: t' = gamma*t - L*beta*gamma/c; if t=0.25 years and L=1 l.y., beta=v/c=0.8, and gamma=1/sqrt(1- beta^2)=5/3, then t'=-0.9166 years.]

The Tempus Fugitive replies with an "Ack!" upon receipt of the message. It takes .15 years for the signal to traverse that distance, but the Earth is travelling away from the starship at .8 c, so the signal takes .1875 years or 68.4 days for the signal to reach Earth. But in the starship's frame of reference, time on Earth is moving only at .6 its regular speed, so only 41 days pass there (time dilation). The return signal arrives on Earth on March 11, 2999, almost nine months before the original message was sent.

153 posted on 09/30/2003 2:15 PM EDT by Physicist

==============================

But that's my point: in order for FTL not to imply simple and gross time travel, the basics as we know them have to be very wrong.

Here's the fundamental problem: two distant events that are simultaneous in Earth's frame--say, the transmission and receipt of an infinitely fast signal--will not be simultaneous to the receiver if he's in a different frame. If the receiver is receding from the Earth, the "transmission" event takes place well after the "reception" event. The only way around it is for relativity to be totally wrong.

199 posted on 09/30/2003 4:16 PM EDT by Physicist

168 posted on 06/17/2004 7:02:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)

To: Physicist

Thanks for the explanation. I think I'll go get some coffee, and see if I can read it again, perhaps comprehending some of it this time. :-P

169 posted on 06/17/2004 7:04:04 AM PDT by B Knotts

To: AntiGuv

That's certainly what Heisenburg states, but the nuances of it bring about all sorts of bizarre events. For instance, the fact that energy can be 'borrowed' to 'create' a virtual particle, which is then immediately annihilated. That is, unless you have an extremely strong field of some sort, such as a gravitational field. Heisenburg plus a black hole yields Hawking radiation, which blew my mind when I first read about it, and I've always been into particle physics. I still don't fully understand all the implications of Heisenburg, but I could have sworn that I read on NewScientist, or perhaps elsewhere, that Heisenburg was what prevents the use of quantum entanglement for communication purposes. My memory could certainly be failing me, and I'll have to see if I can dig up the article I'm thinking about.

170 posted on 06/17/2004 7:27:15 AM PDT by NJ_gent

To: Buggman

If I remember correctly, time actually slows down as you approach c (speed of light in a vacuum). I believe that was one of the implications of special relativity. There's a reasonably simply equation for calculating it, which I toyed with during high school physics while everyone else was trying to figure out what the heck an electron was.

171 posted on 06/17/2004 7:31:23 AM PDT by NJ_gent

To: PatrickHenry
Thankee, thankee! That was it, although (full disclosure) I seem to remember that I posted it on two different threads, the original version containing a mistake (which I caught and corrected). Do you have a link to the original thread?
172 posted on 06/17/2004 7:56:43 AM PDT by Physicist

To: techcor
"How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all". Line from a comedy sketch. Bet no one knows which one...

"Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers" - (Ralph Spoilsport of Ralph Spoilsport Motors, in the city of Emphysema...)

173 posted on 06/17/2004 8:03:47 AM PDT by martin gibson

To: Physicist; B Knotts; PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer; longshadow; Junior; Buggman

Oh dear, we're going to have 'issues'.. =)

From a causality standpoint, it does not matter if: "T and T' are simultaneous in the Earth's frame, but T' is simultaneous with a time earlier than T in the traveller's frame." What matters is that the traveller can receive no transmission at T'-x in reply to a transmission sent at T' and that the Earth can receive no transmission at T-x in reply to a transmission sent at T.

You are implicitly introducing a third reference frame interacting with the first two reference frames thereby creating a second inertial frame whereby the causal loop can be set up..

I already addressed the Lorenz transformation at the point I wrote that "the single inertial frame cannot twist in such a way as to make events in one locale's absolute future appear to be in that locale's past" [from that same locale's perspective]. That is the 'twist' to which I am referring to. Clearly I'm going to have to write another detailed post..

174 posted on 06/17/2004 8:04:25 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: PatrickHenry; Physicist

The conjectural tachyon communication is not relevant to the supposed quantum entanglement communication discussed here. Tachyons are in fact moving at superluminal velocities and have four-momentum; in short, relevant to causality, they are their own reference frame. In this "spooky action at a distance" quantum entanglement we're discussing, nothing is moving anywhere in the course of the FTL communication. Rather, you are extrapolating a series of actions upon the entangled particles at the other end by observing changes to the entangled particles on your end (which is somehow violating the No-Cloning Principle and creating an EPR Paradox, but let's not go there! ;)

175 posted on 06/17/2004 8:11:49 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: vannrox
I hope you aren't using channel 6 news to learn science. I'm not sure quantum entanglement is fresh news, but using Be and Ca to produce the phenomenon may be.

Trillion-atom triumph

For the first time physicists have forged quantum entanglement between two large blobs of gas. The achievement brings closer the possibility of super-fast quantum computers and teleportation1.

176 posted on 06/17/2004 8:14:50 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)

To: Physicist
Do you have a link to the original thread?

No. I just saved your post.

177 posted on 06/17/2004 8:20:24 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)

To: bunkerhill7

"Spike Lee just insulted me...but in Bizarro world, he said he likes my pants!"
- The Simpsons

BTW, this is SauronOfMordor's daughter. Fascinating subject, this is. Don't really understand it...but then, few people do.

178 posted on 06/17/2004 8:22:43 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)

To: AntiGuv
"The particles appear to have some inexplicable communion with one another that operates outside our current conception of the physical universe."

Just damn! That comment gave me a chill. Is it possibly an effect (and evidence) of a fourth dimension?
179 posted on 06/17/2004 8:23:17 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)

To: spodefly

In my version of that program it's all 9 of 9.

180 posted on 06/17/2004 8:27:38 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)

To: vannrox

It is named after Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who published the idea in 1935

I saw this guy speak on C-span, I'd never heard of EPR before, makes ya look at things a bit different.

181 posted on 06/17/2004 8:35:50 AM PDT by OXENinFLA

To: AntiGuv
What matters is that the traveller can receive no transmission at T'-x in reply to a transmission sent at T' and that the Earth can receive no transmission at T-x in reply to a transmission sent at T.

That's true, provided that nothing goes faster than light.

You are implicitly introducing a third reference frame interacting with the first two reference frames thereby creating a second inertial frame whereby the causal loop can be set up.

Not at all. I used two reference frames, the Earth's and the traveller's. That was sufficient to set up a closed time-like loop. If there's another reference frame, identify it (by velocity).

I already addressed the Lorenz transformation at the point I wrote that "the single inertial frame cannot twist in such a way as to make events in one locale's absolute future appear to be in that locale's past" [from that same locale's perspective].

That's true, provided that nothing goes faster than light.

182 posted on 06/17/2004 8:37:34 AM PDT by Physicist

To: Physicist
That's true, provided that nothing goes faster than light.

But nothing is going faster than light in your hypothetical. The starship is travelling at 'merely' 99% luminal velocity. The communication is not "going" anywhere at all. It simply 'is' somehow..

If there's another reference frame, identify it (by velocity).

You are implicitly assigning a reference frame to the communication itself, but based on our parameters (quantum entanglement 'ansibles') the communication has no reference frame.

183 posted on 06/17/2004 8:43:28 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: Physicist
Inexplicable Communion Theory ©

=)

184 posted on 06/17/2004 8:51:07 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: AntiGuv
The conjectural tachyon communication is not relevant to the supposed quantum entanglement communication discussed here.

Tut, tut! In reply #110, you said:

But superluminal transportation would not enable one to send messages from the future into the past.

So if we've gone off-topic, it's down to you. In any case, I hope I've demonstrated that the above statement is wrong.

In this "spooky action at a distance" quantum entanglement we're discussing, nothing is moving anywhere in the course of the FTL communication. Rather, you are extrapolating a series of actions upon the entangled particles at the other end by observing changes to the entangled particles on your end

But the same argument works for instantaneous communication. In that case, the "ack" is received on January 30, 2999. The key point is that the "ping" event, as received by the traveller, is simultaneous with a much earlier time on Earth as measured in the traveller's frame than it is as measured in the Earth's frame. That's the physical GEOMETRY of the situation, and it has nothing to do with how the information is sent.

So what's the solution? Why can't we use quantum entanglement to send messages back in time, if both relativity and quantum mechanics are correct? It's because quantum entanglement doesn't involve any communication of information. This article is very misleading in that regard; I'm sorry, but there it is. As they say in statistics, correlation is not causality. This is mere correlation. It can't be used to send anything: not "ping", not "ack", not Bones McCoy. It's simply a reflection of the limits of information in the physical universe.

185 posted on 06/17/2004 8:51:32 AM PDT by Physicist

To: AntiGuv
But nothing is going faster than light in your hypothetical.

The signal is.

You are implicitly assigning a reference frame to the communication itself

So make it infinitely fast. The argument still works. In fact, it's simpler.

186 posted on 06/17/2004 8:53:40 AM PDT by Physicist

To: Physicist; Junior
It's because quantum entanglement doesn't involve any communication of information.

Yes, I realize that is what current theory requires, but we are pretending here that either (a) quantum entanglement does permit communication of information; or (b) that quantum entanglement in conjunction with a classic interpretation device can permit the appearance of communication of information.

I am not proclaiming that it would work. I am only confronting the causality issues in the event that it does happen to work. I'm also not even trying to deal with the concept of a starship itself travelling at superluminal velocities, because that introduces a whole 'nother set of weird science I don't wanna deal with. =)

At the point where I said superluminal "transportation" I was simply wrong. Junior and I quickly hashed it out but what I should've said was superluminal "transmission"; I used the term "transportation" due to others using the term, but I realized shortly thereafter that the terminology was misleading and inaccurate.

187 posted on 06/17/2004 8:58:54 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: Physicist
The signal is.

No, it isn't. Information is being communicated but nothing is 'going' anywhere. If it were quantifiable, then it would not be "spooky" action, now would it? =)

So make it infinitely fast. The argument still works. In fact, it's simpler.

I don't see how unless you introduce a third reference frame interacting with the first two (which in principle is always the case anyhow, which is why I said that the causality problem is ultimately unresolved).

188 posted on 06/17/2004 9:04:54 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: D_Idaho

Bones, is that you?

189 posted on 06/17/2004 9:11:54 AM PDT by tje

To: AntiGuv
At the point where I said superluminal "transportation" I was simply wrong. Junior and I quickly hashed it out but what I should've said was superluminal "transmission";

You're still wrong. Look, the transmitter sends its signal on January 1, 3000. On the starship, it's some other date as measured in the Earth's frame, because time is moving more slowly there as viewed from Earth. (The exact date depends on when the clocks were last synchronized.) Whatever that date may be, it is simultaneous with January 30, 2999 on Earth, as measured in the starship's frame. So if the starship is going to send an "entanglement signal" right back again, when would the starship expect it to be received, if not on January 30, 2999? Why would it get there later? In order to get to Earth on January 1, 3000 (which it would have to, to preserve causality), the signal would have to take 0.9166/0.6 = 1.53 years to travel the 0.8 lightyears to Earth...a speed that's about half as fast as light. (If you wonder where the factor of 0.6 came from, remember, Earth's clocks are running slow in the starship's frame.) Why would it do that? The starship travellers are going to wonder who broke the ansible!

190 posted on 06/17/2004 9:14:23 AM PDT by Physicist

To: vannrox
I don't care how many times it's been said or how corny it is: "Beam Me Up Scotty!"

This from a viewer who remembered watching the original Star Trek eps in the early 60's. I even wrote a letter protesting the show's cancellation!

191 posted on 06/17/2004 9:16:44 AM PDT by Ciexyz ("FR, best viewed with a budgie on hand")

To: Physicist
(If you wonder where the factor of 0.6 came from, remember, Earth's clocks are running slow in the starship's frame.)

Yes, but Earth does not receive transmissions in the starship's frame. Earth receives transmissions in its own frame and each reply transmission is received later than the preceding transmission. Therefore, no causality violation.

192 posted on 06/17/2004 9:24:04 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: Physicist

I have a link bookmarked somewhere that explains all this much better than I'm (obviously) doing so I'll try to find it and post it ASAP.

193 posted on 06/17/2004 9:26:30 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: AntiGuv
Yes, but Earth does not receive transmissions in the starship's frame.

Tell that to the people on the starship! Why is Earth's reference frame privileged? All events in the universe occur in every frame of reference, and all frames of reference are equally valid. You can't say, "well, the math works out for the people on Earth, but not for somebody somewhere else".

If the Earthlings send their "Happy New Year 3000" message on January 1, 3000, and it's received by the people on the starship instantaneously, there's already a problem. The people on the starship know for a fact that it's January 30, 2999 back on Earth. They take one look at the message and say, "this is from the future". Causality is already out the window with the very first event.

194 posted on 06/17/2004 9:33:46 AM PDT by Physicist

To: Robert_Paulson2
technically speaking they say anything is possible in the (scary) world of quantum physics... which is where we ar headed... string theory seems to be confirmed by these little experiments.

Another test planned:

195 posted on 06/17/2004 9:40:21 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

To: Physicist
Why is Earth's reference frame privileged?

Why is the starship's reference frame privileged? This is getting back to what I said before: you are privileging first one frame and then the other depending on who is transmitting. You can't do that!

The people on the starship know for a fact that it's January 30, 2999 back on Earth.

That's not how time dilation works.. The people on the starship know for a fact that it's December 30, 2999 on the starship. If they are keeping track of the time dilation effect, they know for a fact that it's January 1, 3000 back on Earth. Whatever the case, the reply transmission will be received on Earth at a later time than their initial communique, and there will be no causality problem.

196 posted on 06/17/2004 9:50:59 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: Physicist

Make that January 30, 2999 on the starship - or whatever! (same difference)

197 posted on 06/17/2004 9:52:15 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: AntiGuv
Why is the starship's reference frame privileged?

It isn't. The physics has to work out in all frames, so I'm perfectly well entitled to do my calculations the starship's frame. The point is that the result had better be the same in both frames. As long as everything goes no faster than light, it will be, but as soon as you have something going faster than light, you get crazy results. As is the case here.

The people on the starship know for a fact that it's December 30, 2999 on the starship. If they are keeping track of the time dilation effect, they know for a fact that it's January 1, 3000 back on Earth.

Wrong. You are assuming that two events that are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in all frames. That is not the case, nor can it be the case. The axes of simultaneity are not parallel between the two frames.

198 posted on 06/17/2004 10:06:15 AM PDT by Physicist

To: Physicist
To be precise, I should say: that's not how subluminal time dilation works. The proper time experienced by a superluminal traveller is imaginary..

Maybe some will find this interesting: Interval in the Theory of Relativity. It discusses interval invariance (it's not the link I mentioned before - still looking for that).

199 posted on 06/17/2004 10:07:06 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)

To: Physicist
The axes of simultaneity are not parallel between the two frames.

Well, no they're not, but they can be figuratively depicted as such insofar as they're relevant in the circumstances discussed here... In the 'real world' the axes would be distorted by the time dilation effect. That was assumed..

200 posted on 06/17/2004 10:09:17 AM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)