 |
What follows is an archival copy of public information. Content herein is believed to be of historical interest to Delta Green fandom and should remain untouched, as a sign of respect for the original author(s). The article must be removed on request by copyright holders, if any. Please improve the wiki with living documents inspired by the ideas here. |
 |
The following material was imported from the Ice Cave, where it was related to the gates and teleportation discussion. |
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:46:03 -0800 (PST)
From: John Stanley
Just a quick question to the list.
DISCLAIMER: Before you flame me for asking a stupid question, you must know that I do not have any sort of degree in physics, quantum mechanics, or any other fundamental science degree.
I wonder if the fastest thing in the universe is not light. I mean, is it possible that there is some other medium that transmits faster, and would enable travel to the far-flung corners of the universe to occur relatively faster ?
My question is based in reality, all Mythos stuff aside. But I guess the answer and it's implications could go a long way to convincing some of it's reality. And no I don't want to go to another mailing list to ask it!!!
Thanks in advance,
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:00:25 +0100 (BST)
From: "David.Clements"
I wonder if the fastest thing in the universe is not light. I mean, is it possible that there is some other medium that transmits faster, and would enable travel to the far-flung corners of the universe to occur relatively faster ?
All the evidence we have suggests that light speed the limit for matter as we know it. Its actually worse than that - anything with mass can only get closer and closer to light speed, it can never reach it.
This is tested every day in particle accelarators around the globe, where various forms of matter - protons, electrons, positrons etc. - are accelarated closer and closer to light speed. They never reach it because, as speed increases, pumping more energy into the paticles increases their mass more than their speed ( I could give a formula for this but am trying to keep it short ).
There are a lot of arguments why there can't be other media that can work faster than light. However, there is a mathematically consistant type of object that *could* travel faster than light (in fact, always has to travel faster than light in the same way normnal matter has to travel slower). These are the so-called tachyons which have to have imaginary mass (ie. mass is some multiple of the square root of -1) and negative energy, and they behave really wierdly.
ObDG: Of course with things like the gravity glyph that cause MJ12 so much trouble, its clear that our Einsteinian and quantum view of the universe is totally wrong, but negative energy etc. could inspire some Cookbook artifacts…
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:17:42 EST
From: "William Timmins"
I wonder if the fastest thing in the universe is not light. I mean, is it possible that there is some other medium that transmits faster, and would enable travel to the far-flung corners of the universe to occur relatively faster ?
Not a stupid question. After all, it took a genius to notice relativity, fairly recently.
The speed of light limitation, and relativity, isn't really a matter of the medium, as such. Sure, light can go slower if it moves through substances, but there is something much more fundamental going on.
It would be horribly offtopic to give a good explanation of the reasons why light speed is a limit, and I suggest looking up information on Einstein, relativity, and the speed of light.
Simply speaking, science abhors paradox. If an idea leads to a paradox, it is wrong. Period. Things don't both happen and not happen, things aren't contradictory. If they seem contradictory, it is because we don't understand what's going on.
There are reasons based on reference frames and paradox why light speed is the maximum for every reference frame, and is observed as the same speed no matter what speed you are going at. There are reasons why nothing can go faster. Light speed isn't merely an engineering issue, it is part of the fundamental nature of space and time.
Anything going faster than the speed of limit goes outside the nature of the universe, creates paradoxes, and, in general, is almost certainly impossible.
Sorry about the vagueness, but if you'd like a good explanation of why, I suggest reading up on it. There are simple explanations out there, believe it or not.
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:20:25 EST
From: "William Timmins"
Ooo! Found a great site outlining special relativity, FTL, time travel, and so forth!
Everyone who has been following this thread should check out:
http://planets.netnation.com/FTL_intro.html
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:44:10 EST
From: LizardRoi
In a message dated 00-03-27 12:22:16 EST, you write:
Simply speaking, science abhors paradox. If an idea leads to a paradox, it is wrong. Period. Things don't both happen and not happen, things aren't contradictory. If they seem contradictory, it is because we don't understand what's going on.
Gosh, someone must have accidentally given you the Teacher's copy with all the answers, you lucky stiff.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence in the sample I quoted.
Everything after that is based on some assumptions I don't make. Because when we make an assumption, we make an ass out of u and mption.
And before anyone starts swelling up in umbrage, I want to gently remind everyone that we *were* talking about how to play with Gates in a fictional setting. I mean, no one here is afflicted with the sort of hubris that blandly assumes it *knows* how the "real" universe works.
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:56:10 -0500
From: "Mused"
Nope. In our reality it is not just a good idea, it is the law.
Things like tachyons are mental exercises, not Postulated Particles (why does that sound like a sidekick's trademark exclamation)
I think if we find a way past light it will be a tricky sidestep, like the game 2300 AD's stutterwarp (use electron tunnelling on a huge scale)
I always wondered though, if you are behaving like a particle (like SW) and someone scans you with radar, you and the scanner will not know your position with any degree of certainty
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:58:03 -0500
From: "Mused"
And before anyone starts swelling up in umbrage, I want to gently remind everyone that we *were* talking about how to play with Gates in a fictional setting. I mean, no one here is afflicted with the sort of hubris that blandly assumes it *knows* how the "real" universe works.
Call of Cthulhu isn't a history text?
SHIT!
Excuse me, I have to go rewrite an essay
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:54:49 -0800
From: Philip A Posehn
Before anyone flames you, My answer is , "Perhaps…"
Since I don't have a degree in physics eiher I'll probably make a few mistakes here but the basic quantum physics are right…
I am referring to Bell's theorem. There exist a variety of sub-atomic particles that are found paired in their normal state. One member of the pair always has a spin exactly opposite of the other. If you alter the spin of one, the spin of the other will change to mirror its partner. Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. This was experimentally proven in the 1970's. This would seem to postulate INSTANTANEOUS communication between the 2 particles. It also implies some things that sound a lot like Hindu Cosmology.
I'm sure I'm butchering the lecture badly. Several Physics students in the group may correct me on the details but the basic principles have been giving quantum physicists the shakes for years now.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:14:45 +0900
From: "David Farnell"
Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO.
And formed the basis for the Ansible (see Orson Scott Card's "Ender" series), which has become an SF staple. This could also explain the superluminal aspects of Andy Robertson's "GOO-Mind Gate Network" theory.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:26:32 -0500
From: Daniel Harms
This would seem to postulate INSTANTANEOUS communication between the 2 particles.
Probably not. What happens here has to do with the nature of measurement.
To measure a system, you need to have some sort of energy emanate from it or bounce off from it, so that either our senses or instruments can register it. The trouble in quantum mechanics is that, to observe the system, you have to bounce quanta off of quanta, which disrupts the system you were trying to measure.
However, if two quantum particles arose from the same event, you can measure one of them. That one is disrupted, but because the two have opposing spins, you know what the other one is doing, and can measure it indirectly.
That's basically right, though the terminology and the fine details are probably off.
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:49:35 -0800
From: Philip A Posehn
Mr. Heisenberg will have the last word again, I suppose, although there are a lot of physicists who still support the "whole new ballgame" interpretation.
If nothing else it makes for a stimulating thread.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 03:44:56 EST
From: LizardRoi
To measure a system, you need to have some sort of energy emanate from it or bounce off from it, so that either our senses or instruments can register it. The trouble in quantum mechanics is that, to observe the system, you have to bounce quanta off of quanta, which disrupts the system you were trying to measure.
Someone once used a comprehensible metaphor to describe the implications of the Heisenberg Principle (in The Dancing Wu Li Masters IIRC). In layman's kitchen sink terms, the problem is similar to getting the temperature of a cup of tea right *now*. If you stick a thermometer in the tea, you've just cooled the tea by the degree of difference between the two initial temperatures. So your measurement is of the temperature after it reaches equilibrium. Heating the thermometer first doesn't fix the problem unless the you heat it to *precisely* the temperature of the tea, which means you would have to know the temperature before you attempted to measure it.
However, if two quantum particles arose from the same event, you can measure one of them. That one is disrupted, but because the two have opposing spins, you know what the other one is doing, and can measure it indirectly.
Which means (and I am ramming my virtual tongue hard into my virtual cheek here) that after mangling the state of one quanta you can point to the one spinning in the opposite direction and say "But we didn't touch that one so it's in it's natural state." Y'know, it's a damn good thing that those evil twins are there so we can have something pristine and unobserved and random when we need it. I'm seeing a Monty Python routine where the scientists must get a report on a particle without looking at it, referring to it, or in any way acknowledge it. We'll call this particle Jehovah. Then John Cleese remembers that they can question the other twin, backwards, and clandestinely extrapolate on an alleged particle it is reported looks like such and such. So they rush the twin and go Medieval on it's ass, they grill it like the Spanish Inquisition. Which was really unexpected.
I'm not so sure that any of this is OT. Those who were unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of the Einsteinian model now have some excellent descriptions of the complexities and even some formulas to apply in scenarios. I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of lurkers who have been saving some of these posts for reference later. Also, some of the counterintuitive poetry of quantum phenomena may be new to others. All of the models provide story seeds or simply rationalizations of behavior needed for a scenario. We've had metaphors and models that can provide useful rules of thumb. Use them as long as they are useful but switch models when you have to force things to fit.
The quote refers to a *foolish* consistency. I tend to favor networking and messaging for my modelling, but like, duh.
Three guesses what I do for a living. I find the information\signal to be more significant than the matter. I tend to see matter\energy as order we perceive in chaos, the stuff we notice because we find it significant. An infinite number of monkeys are typing away, we notice the complete works of Shakespeare, the OED, the Upanishads and so on and say, "See, there is story and grammar and rules of punctuation. It all makes sense. All that other stuff is just noise and chaos and coincidence and mass hypnosis." Right about now the rabbi is supposed to punch me in the nose and say, "So tell me, bubbelah, what hurts?"
But rabbis are girly-men too devout and flabby to study martial arts…. ;-P
"It's only a model."
If that's too guru voodoo hippy Castaneda Crowley Leary Lilley Wilson Wicca Technomage mumbo jumbo for your tastes, feel free to use another model. All I can say is - the chicks dig it.
We've Gated all over the universe. Sometimes we got jet lag, sometimes we got there before we left, and sometimes it was just like stepping through a door. I'm starting to see the QuIP network as a nervous system now, and wondering why I didn't see it before. As above, so below. Sacre merde! Gates as synapses. QuIP as a holographic memory.
This was no boating accident. It was the List at work. A little shakin', a little tenderizin', and there ya go.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:32:22 +0100 (BST)
From: "David.Clements"
Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO.
I mentioned this in passing in an earlier posting. Its thought that while entanglement works, its not possible to send information using it, so it doesn't break relativity and can't be used for communication.
But this is an active area of research, so it would only be fair to say that we don't know the final answer yet.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 05:24:48 -0800 (PST)
From: John Stanley
I guess the reason I was asking in the original question, is because even though we have gone to the moon, have learned how to harness the atom, and can store vast amounts of information in relatively small areas, our science is still pretty much in it's infancy as compared to the age and vastness of the known universe. So my question was really saying, how do we really know light is fastest ? Sure, it works with our math, and our math works for the things we've proven using our math (lost anyone?)
Apparently I've lost myself!!! Anyway, thanks to everyone for your thoughtful, and intelligent answers.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:46:16 +0200
From: Martin Ostergaard
particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO. This was experimentally proven in
Yes, instantaneous, just one teensy weensy little problem, you still need to observe this effect, and the observation can only occur if you have some sort of primer that has to be synchronised and is only transferable at sublight speeds, hence, relativity still holds up, sure you have instant communication, but you have no idea what its communicating until the primer arrive in both places at the same time. You cant beat the speed of light.
BUT its thought that the speed of light (henceforth referred to as 'c') is a barrier, and that particles exist that always exist above c. Ofcourse this has no practical use. Also near c velocities is generally a bad idea since you have to accelerate your spacecraft, which would take time if any organic material on board (humans;) were to survive the forces.
As stated earlier in the thread, look up relativity and quantum mechanics, find out that even if things are seperated by space it can still be close if you travel in a straight line in more than 3 dimensions. Wont go into this now ;) Get this book instead:
Stephen Hawking: A brief history of time
Excellent beginning information that most people will be able to understand.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:53:50 EST
From: "William Timmins"
I always wondered though, if you are behaving like a particle (like SW) and someone scans you with radar, you and the scanner will not know your position with any degree of certainty
Actually, this is somewhat correct. But indeterminacy (the 'cloud' of a wave) is inversely related to mass. So most particles have a pretty fixed location/energy. Big hunks of matter are also waves, but waves with a range so limited that it is almost undetectable.
This is one problem with the quantum teleport thing. We can cause weird quantum effects with photons, but doing so with matter over significant distances is … well. Almost infinitely more tricky.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:08:22 +0200
From: Martin Ostergaard
By this interpretation, it seems that by affecting one particle, you instantaneously cause an effect to occur with the other particle. This suggests that state information can travel instantaneously… which is a potential problem, for all the previous discussion about FTL.
Well, QM and Special Relativity does not agree with eachother, so youre right, but there is another option before we jump to the many worlds conclusions… super string theory, this is a likely candidate for a unified theory that can account for both QM and SR effects at the same time.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:12:38 +0200
From: Martin Ostergaard
Does anybody know what the Speed of Dark is?
I know this was not meant seriously, but now that you mention it, I would just like to blather on some more ;) A black hole is something with so much gravitational pull that even light cannot escape, this _must_ mean that within the event horizon of a black hole, light is sucked in faster than light… chew on that kids ;) I know, its a paradox.. just thought Id annoy everyone.. sorry.. its OT and all that too.. *sob*
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:19:17 EST
From: "William Timmins"
Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO.
As far as I understand the situation, here you go:
There is a process that spits out a pair of electrons, with spin conservation. So that if the left electron has up spin, the right one has down, and vice versa.
If you don't observe either particle, their nature is indeterminate. They are both up/down and down/up.
If observer A and B, a lightminute apart, set it up so that they both observe one of the particles at the same time, they will always find the particles in agreement.
If observer A observes one particle, the other becomes DETERMINED, not indeterminate, and all evidence of particle B will match what the observer knows of the first particle.
There are several important things to remember:
An indeterminate state is NOT the same as not knowing what state a particle is in. A particle which has taken a specific state is physically distinct from an indeterminate particle. For one thing, they behave differently.
There is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, an attempt to explain the math that composes QM, that observations cause indeterminate states to collapse into discrete states (wave collapse). By this interpretation, it seems that by affecting one particle, you instantaneously cause an effect to occur with the other particle. This suggests that state information can travel instantaneously… which is a potential problem, for all the previous discussion about FTL.
However, there is a (IMO) much better interpretation which fits and causes no paradox, the many worlds explanation (http://wtimmins.tripod.com/lore/manyworlds.html). Essentially, it argues that the observer is also a collection of particles and wave states.
When you observe something, it doesn't cause the wave to collapse. It causes YOU to become a more complex wave. In the above example, observing an electron splits you into the you-who-observed-up, and the you-who-observed-down. This changes how you interact with the universe, as your consciousness is now segmented. Observations are now locked down for you, and your complex wave spreads to those you come into contact with. The universe segments.
So your observation will always agree with further evidence (or other observers) because you have split into two components. The part of you who observed 'up' is in phase with another observer, or evidence, that sees the other particle as 'down'.
Most physicists and other scientists steadfastedly reject this interpretation. But if you listen to their reasoning why, it almost universally stems from emotion… it just rubs them wrong. They want a small, tight, comfortable, certain universe. The vast spinning alternates emotionally displeases them.
Whatever. Just a reminder that humans are humans. Perhaps they are avoiding SAN loss. ;)
ObDG: Remember, no matter how much study or information you get, you can't cause SAN loss from those who refuse to accept it.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:39:41 EST
From: "William Timmins"
known universe. So my question was really saying, how do we really know light is fastest ? Sure, it works with our math, and our math works for the things we've proven using our math (lost anyone?)
In short, it's not math. We know light is the fastest because of a large amount of evidence. Part of the evidence is that we've never observed anything move faster than light. Evidence completely supports Relativity being true. And if relativity is true, NOTHING can move faster than light.
I don't know for certain, but I expect that a good 25% of our electronics technology is affected by relativity, and wouldn't work as it does if relativity were wrong.
Again, there are resources that explain why, if you feel up to it.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:57:29 -0500
From: Tal Meta
Does anybody know what the Speed of Dark is?
186000 (-1 foot) per second.
From: Frank Frey
I know this was not meant seriously, but now that you mention it,
Oh yes it was. The principles of Dualism will not allow Light to be faster than Dark. The principle of Nihilism will even go so far as to allow that Dark is faster than Light. You may take comfort in your Science if you wish but you can't outrun the Dark.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:23:24 +0200
From: Jean-Loup Sabatier
Bell's theorem established through a mathematical process that I cannot begin to follow that if you seperate the pair of particles the one particle will CONTINUE to mirror any change you cause to the other NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU SEPERATE THE TWO.
Two entangled particles with superposed states |HV>-|HV> (H = horizontal and V = vertical) created by an EPR source (EPR stands for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) keep their orthogonal polarizations in any case. This was generalized by Bell later for 3 other states : |HH>+|VV>, |HH>-|VV>, and |HV>+|HV>.
You can NOT measure the polarization of a particle without destroying it (but however you CAN measure it).
You can use this Bell states to transmit informations : there was the Innsbruck experiment (reported by American Scientific a couple of years ago) using this effect to tramsit information.
You emit a photon pair A and B (entangled), with orthogonal polarization received on Xa and Xb. Xa emits a 3rd photon, C, with a known polarization, and tries to communicate this polarization to Xb. For this purpose, you send this photon C to a beam splitter (a semi reflective mirror) giving a photon pair being in one of the four Bell states described above. In the same time, B is being modified to keep its polarization orthogonal to A.
This new polarization can be measured. But to know the value of the polarization of C, you have to compare the B new state to the Bell state of the two photons measured on Xa. So, you have to communicate this two measurements to Xb by conventionnal means (slower than light speed). So, at the time, there is no infringement to the relativity. But at least, it validates the principle.
I'm sorry that's not very clear, and my english vocabulary is very bad about physics.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:27:49 +0100 (BST)
From: "David.Clements"
Well, QM and Special Relativity does not agree with eachother, so
Not correct. Its QM and *general* relativity that have a problem, special is just fine.
youre right, but there is another option before we jump to the many worlds conclusions… super string theory, this is a likely candidate for a unified theory that can account for both QM and SR effects at the same time.
Many Worlds is a philosophical interpretation, while sueprstrings, and its descendent, the N-brane, is a full scale mathematical theory. I haven't loked into it, but I'm sure that you could have Many Worlds with superstrings, just as easily as you have it with normal QM. In a sense you're asking why the wave-function collapses, with the philosphy, and what the wave function would be, with the string theory.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:31:33 +0100
From: "Andy Robertson"
And before anyone starts swelling up in umbrage, I want to gently remind everyone that we *were* talking about how to play with Gates in a fictional setting. I mean, no one here is afflicted with the sort of hubris that blandly assumes it *knows* how the "real" universe works.
I guess that's true: and I think the "Physics" mavens here on the list don't want to offend: but the trouble is that modern Physics is _so_ wierd that the Mythos elements just scream out for comment. Consequentially, I guess we get over-confident, over-didactic, because the way we see it we are finding the Mythos through science and that's just so wonderful.
A game? Yes. But Science is _so_ wierd, and the stench that comes off it is _so_ familar.
The Mythos lies on the "other side" of science. We believe that understanding science is one way of understanding the Mythos better.
Do you expect us to be reasonable? Believing _that_?
The only argument that would convince me is this one. The things inside our heads are compelling us to try to share them with you. But if we are offending you - well, that shows we are being unskillful. So we will be more cunning in future.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:19:33 +0100
From: "Andy Robertson"
Does anybody know what the Speed of Dark is?
186000 (-1 foot) per second.
186000 times the square-root-of-minus-one miles per second
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:50:48 -0500
From: box_nine
Andy wrote:
Consequentially, I guess we get over-confident, over-didactic, because the way we see it we are finding the Mythos through science and that's just so wonderful.
I think the issue was more one of "That can't work by the normal laws of physics!" vs. HPL's notion that at present we foolishly assume we understand the physical laws of the universe. Certainly, looking at the discussion of gates I'm not about to complain about physics discussion.
On the other hand, we're keeping the King in Yellow. It's bad enough humanities budgets are getting slashed, you're not taking our eldritch deities.