h a l f b a k e r yNice swing,
no follow-through.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
If wave function travels faster than speed of light, it explains weird things like:
- Double slit experiment
- Entanglement
- Quantum eraser
In other words wave function travels at infinite speed to everywhere, and then just sits there ready to be collapsed. But the collapse itself happens
at the speed of light.
In yet other words: Wave function matrix spreads out through the cosmos at infinite speed but the probabilities travel, evolve, and shape that that matrix do so at speed of light until it collapses.
I know nothing travels faster than speed of light. But considering the alternative bizarre explanations, why couldn't we accept that wave functions do in-fact travel faster than speed of light?
We can't measure the wave functions to confirm. And perhaps we never will, but using this concept to explain what's going on makes it easier to wrap your head around quantum physics without going nuts.
Block time point of view
https://en.wikipedi...philosophy_of_time)
Space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block" as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time [bhumphrys, Oct 07 2016]
Nick herebrt published 14 things that travel faster than light, this is not that list, it is a similar list
http://math.ucr.edu...eedOfLight/FTL.html
[beanangel, Oct 13 2016]
Nick Herberts faster than light writing, featuring yuri.
https://www.google....t+faster+than+light
[beanangel, Oct 13 2016]
[link]
|
| |
FTL is not needed to explain the double-slit
experiment; virtual particles can explain it just fine. |
|
| |
So far as I know, entanglement is a slower-than light
event, but the resolution of the tangle (collapse of the
wave function) is FTL. That is, measuring one part of
an entangled particle-pair automatically/instantly tells
you what value the other part has --at the same
moment-- no matter how far away it is, and how long it
took to get there travelling slower-than-light. |
|
| |
I'm not familiar with the quantum eraser as I write this,
so can't comment on that until after I study it. |
|
| |
later, i will explain how to verify this.
ok, i will do it now. |
|
| |
Cerenkov radiation (wikipedia) is the blue glow at reactor water when neutrinos travel faster than light through water. so you could test the collapse of the wave functions velocity if you double slit some cerenkov radiation and see if it has fasterocity than double slit lasers through the reactor water. through cleverness if they are simultaneous, then they are truly instantaneous. If there is a delay, favoring either, then neutrino wave functions collapse at a different velocity than photon velocities, possibly. |
|
| |
Nothing does travel faster than the speed of light, if you consider empty space to be nothing. It can move at any speed. |
|
| |
I've not yet had my quantum mechanical overhaul, so I'm kinda clueless when it comes to this stuff, but doesn't the wave function express a probability cloud? And measuring collapses the wave, meaning that there's no longer a cloud, but a certainty, so the particle isn't really everywhere, it just could be. |
|
| |
I also wonder about quantum entanglement. Isn't measuring something here, telling you it has a complementary state over there, with no way to actually transmit data? |
|
| |
My pet theory that I don't know the math to properly express is that the universe actually already contains everything that ever has or will have happened in a steady state. Thus the speed of light is merely the speed we perceive propagation of its algorithms. The passing of time isn't a function of entropy but of C directly, and entropy also happens at that speed. This explains all quantum weirdness. I would appreciate being spoon-fed the math that would express this, or told why it's bollocks. |
|
| |
Things can travel faster than light. Here's a
thought experiment: imagine a perfectly straight
wave at sea, approaching a straight sea wall. If
the wave and wall are parallel, the wave hits the
wall all at once, all along the wall. If the wave
and wall are not quite parallel then the point of
impact between the wave and wall moves along the
wall very fast - if the angle between the two is
sufficiently narrow, this point of impact moves
faster than light. The crucial thing though is that
this moving point of impact carries no information
- information cannot travel faster than light. |
|
| |
Voice: it's bollocks, because you made it up, don't know the
math, and the math is probably weirder than your theory. |
|
| |
"can't comment on that until after I study it" |
|
| |
[Voice] you may be referring to a 'block time' view of the universe? (Link) |
|
| |
[TIB] Nothing is nothing. It can't move. Other stuff has to move to alter the nothing. |
|
| |
[hippo] I'm feeling there is a bent reference frame, something a magician would use, in the thought experiment. If the wave is perpendicular it travels as fast as the wave, if parallel instanteous and a f(angle,wave) inbetween. It seems a sort of virtual finishing line. No action actually travelling the line. |
|
| |
[wjt] Is empty space nothing or something? My point was that empty space is something, with measurable energy, and it can move faster than light, as it looks to have in our early universe, perhaps also at one of the edges of our universe -- a black hole. That's my understanding of it anyway but maybe I'm dead wrong (remember, I'm no quantum mechanic). |
|
| |
What is moving in the wave example is the point of interaction of two things. Like the laser pointer swept across the moon: the point of interaction of photon and moon is what is changing. The point of interaction has characteristics different from either thing prior to interaction, and which are consistent from event to event and also continuous and so this interaction meets the human brain's criteria for "thing" even though the interaction is not a thing. |
|
| |
[bungston] - exactly, the point of interaction
between the wave and the wall might move faster than
light but it's only seen as a 'thing' because that's
just how we think about it, and, it can't hold or
transmit any information (from one end of the wall to
the other faster than light. |
|
| |
//I know nothing travels faster than speed of light.//
Light travels faster than the speed of light. C is an average. Sometimes light travels faster, sometimes slower. |
|
| |
Also, of course, Cherenkov radiation: The reason why
pools of water in nuclear reactors glow blue is
because of Cherenkov radiation, caused by particles
travelling through the water faster than the speed of
light (in water). |
|
| |
Here is a fun cerenkov invention. Noting that galaxies are made of matter, is there a zigzag path through galaxies that neutrinos could travel along (cerenkov like) faster than light (through/near matter) among the same galaxies, because on average the neutrinos would be passing through a matter vacuum mix. That could make a FTL internet sagitally (sideways) along galaxies, as compared with a photonic one |
|
| |
[TIB] What I don't like is the bending of the 'nothing'
definition. Say empty space rather than nothing, especially
if it contains energy. Energy or information is definitely not
nothing. |
|
| |
[bungston] A nice example is Wallace and Gromit stop
motion
animation. |
|
| |
I said if empty space equals nothing then nothing can travel faster than light. There isn't anywhere we know of with actual nothing, so we're bending the definition of nothing to begin with since there's nothing of that nature that exists. There's only nothing but something, meaning that nothing travels faster than light, which is really something. |
|
| |
Arguably, if space is quantised (at a subatomic
level) then objects don't move smoothly through space
but instead jump, instantaneously from one point to
another faster than light. |
|
| |
[hippo] I've often wondered if that also happens when electrons jump shells. They don't move as I understand it, but tunnel (teleport? but through what?), instantly. Related, I wonder where photons are born at this moment of teleporting. |
|
| |
Although I think at that scale, describing subatomic
particles as 'particles' or 'waves' are only us
imposing macro-scale models on these phenomena. So,
describing a photon as a 'particle' may have some
utility and predictive power but at other times it
may make sense to describe it as a 'wave' - neither
reflects the reality but they are useful models. So
it may be that when we think of electrons jumping
shells, neither model is especially good. |
|
| |
[TIB] If empty space has nothing then light itself is the
something. Empty space would both be nothing and
something simultaneously which in it's lowest terms is
still something. |
|
| |
I still hold to the definition of nothing. It can't be divided,
blurred or warped in anyway because it's just nothing. A
starting definition. Then comes the whole can of worms,
something. Likewise with absolute time. It can't be
clocked of course but virtually the mark can be imagined
as the same all throughout existence. |
|
| |
How about a theory where spacetime, rather than just particles, is
quantized? |
|
| |
When you create an entangled pair, spacetime also becomes part of
the quantum state; and therefore only integer quantities of
spacetime can happen between the two particles. |
|
| |
Therefore, although we might think the two particles are far apart
and that their quantum states are mutually dependent with zero
time-lag, in actuality the two particles are zero distance (ie, less
than one quantum, which is zero quanta) apart. |
|
| |
Please mail the Nobel to my secretary, who deals with such things. |
|
| |
[Max] So spacetime entanglement is a whole starchy sticky blob of rice. |
|
| |
Entanglement makes it more likely to be noodles,
rather than rice |
|
| |
//So spacetime entanglement is a whole starchy
sticky blob of rice// |
|
| |
So, potentially a good basis for sushi. |
|
| |
But seriously - Einstein got where he did* by
assuming that the speed of light was constant, and
then figuring out what that meant for spacetime.
If two particles interact "instaneously", then
clearly the distance between them must be zero;
so what happens if we take that zero distance as
being real, and build everything else around that? |
|
| |
(*Famous, I mean, rather than dead.) |
|
| |
About the double slit experiment for electron diffraction, what are the slits made from. If atoms, the slits are made from electrons which are each a point distributed according to a probability function so is this meshing of probability functions just another way of describing a starchy blob of rice sticking to another blob? |
|
| |
So these entangled particles interact
"instantaneously". Therefore the distance between
them must be zero. |
|
| |
Therefore, obvidently, what's _actually_ happening
is that a wormhole is opening up between the
entangled particles, so that the distance between
them can remain zero (in higher dimensions) even
though the distance between them in our three
dimensions appears large. |
|
| |
Ergo, all pairs of entangled particles must lie at
opposite ends of a nano-wormhole. |
|
| |
D'you know, this would be earth-shattering physics
if I actually understood myself. |
|
| |
I have just invented the double slit toaster to take full
advantage of a well known property of quantum mechanics.
Here's how it works: one slice of toast enters at the front
end and is confronted by a double slit. To resolve this
dilemma, two slices of toast emerge at the other end, and
probably find two cups of coffee waiting to join them. I see
nothing to complain about in this arrangement. |
|
| |
Nick herebert writes about how the ripply parts of an EM wave travel at the y axis to the x direction of a radio wave and that they UpandDown faster than the propagation direction, which with radio waves is lightspeed. So this well known phenomena causes FTL UpDown ripples. The thing is getting them to transmit information. Herbert writes about "Yuri" getting a message, I have wondered if it possible to use the big endian or little endian effects of a ~~~~ to do dit-dah like morese code, utilize 8 of these at parallel to send computer data |
|
| |
[beanangel] The ripple is probably what hippo was mentioning. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan] Energy is just change, in my belief system. Any change of something needs nothing, which most people would call space. So I think energy is spacetime but looking from the nothing perspective rather than the something perspective. A worm hole could be fully solid or a chain of nothing, either way change could flow. |
|
| |
<thinking internally> maybe an electron needs it's wave function to hang onto some nothing </thinking internally> |
|
| |
[wjt] That is brilliant. What does it mean? |
|
| |
//So these entangled particles interact "instantaneously".
Therefore the distance between them must be zero. |
|
| |
Makes sense to me. The only reason why we can't wrap
our head around this extra dimension is that our
perceptions have evolved to deal with 4D information
(time, x , y , z). If we could sense the quantum dimension
I bet we would "see" the two entangled particles right
"beside" each other. The universe may be smaller than we
thought. |
|
| |
[Max] It means we all have the desire to imagine where all
those turtles are and what they up to. Of course it has to be
matched against all the measurements that come from all
the stick poking. |
|
| |
[ixnaum] A sense of the quantum dimension(s) is just
knowing what a quantum environment is like to be in.
Another spacial dimension would make the Universe a much
bigger place than it already is. |
|
| |
//where all those turtles are// |
|
| |
There is a school of mathematics (called finitism, I
believe) that holds that numbers are not infinite, and
that there really is a biggest number, after which
they wrap around and start again at zero. If this is
the case, then the largest turtle can sit on the back
of the smallest one, and everything makes sense. |
|
| |
Thank you [bhumphrys]. Now I'm happy at least someone has made a larger framework for it, disappointed I didn't think of it first, miffed the great mathematicians haven't given it more thought, and upset that philosophers mixed it up with their bullshit about god. |
|
| |