Forum unknown
· Off the Cuff
#Time-Dilation Prove
137 messages in this thread
Since telepathy involves the exchange of information, and since there's no such
thing as "pure" info-substance – i.e. you have to modulate some other thing at
one end and decode it at the other end – it seems reasonable that psychons
would be carried on some kind of wave, which further implies that frequencies
and tuning would be important. On the other hand (and it's been a while since I
took that semester on psychon-physics so correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't that
bring us back to Albert's speed-of-light limitation? That is, wouldn't it be
cheating to postulate a faster-than-light wave even if it's some undiscovered
form of energy that is waving?
By the way, does anyone have an answer to the following? If we were to fashion
a rod of some 100% rigid substance, and that rod was, say, exactly 186,000
miles long, and we then (using all our strength) moved one end of it by a
foot… would the other end move a) at the same time, b) one second later, c)
at some other time? If (as you would intuitively expect) both ends of the rod
move simultaneously, then we would have a simple means of faster than light
communication with no distance limitation other than the purely technological
limitation on our ability to build enormous telephone poles (which, in this
instance, they would literally be…)
Nick
Aha … one of the famous questions of relativity. The answer is that there
is no such thing as a perfectly rigid anything. (I don't want to hear any bad
puns!) In fact, energy is transmitted through a material in the form of a
sub-light speed wave. Otherwise, you could in fact jostle a 10-light second
long stick of your superalloy and get an "instant" response at the other end,
in violation of relativity.
Oh well, figured as much, actually. Guess I'll put away the giant Lego tower I
was building and forget the whole idea.
Nick
Oh well, figured as much, actually. Guess I'll put away the giant Lego tower I
was building and forget the whole idea.
Nick
Aha … one of the famous questions of relativity. The answer is that there
is no such thing as a perfectly rigid anything. (I don't want to hear any bad
puns!) In fact, energy is transmitted through a material in the form of a
sub-light speed wave. Otherwise, you could in fact jostle a 10-light second
long stick of your superalloy and get an "instant" response at the other end,
in violation of relativity.
Nick:
Check out wave front boundries too! 73, bill
Umm, I'd love to check out wave front boundaries, Bill, but I left them all in
my other coat. By the way, what do you mean?
Nick
Nick:
<laughing> A wave front for a wave traveling at or very near 'C'
propagates along an interference boundry at greater than 'C.' This fact is no
more related to the discussion about faster than speed of light communication
than the least of what we have discussed but is an interesting fact none the
less.
73,
bill
Yes, that's neat. It reminds me of something I once heard to the effect that if
one could close a pair of scissors so quickly that the tips of the blades were
moving at near c, the point of intersection of the blades would travel outwards
to the tip at greater than c. Which does not violate the special theory because
the point of intersection is not a 'thing' except conceptually.
Nick
Excellent analogy! 73, bill
Excellent analogy! 73, bill
Yes, that's neat. It reminds me of something I once heard to the effect that if
one could close a pair of scissors so quickly that the tips of the blades were
moving at near c, the point of intersection of the blades would travel outwards
to the tip at greater than c. Which does not violate the special theory because
the point of intersection is not a 'thing' except conceptually.
Nick
Nick:
<laughing> A wave front for a wave traveling at or very near 'C'
propagates along an interference boundry at greater than 'C.' This fact is no
more related to the discussion about faster than speed of light communication
than the least of what we have discussed but is an interesting fact none the
less.
73,
bill
Umm, I'd love to check out wave front boundaries, Bill, but I left them all in
my other coat. By the way, what do you mean?
Nick
Nick:
Check out wave front boundries too! 73, bill
Nick:
Also, the time delay would be considerably longer than a second for the
example postulated. A 'solid rod' is a lot less solid than it appears (even if
made of diamond).
73,
bill
Darn. The shareholders in Nick's FTL Communications Corp. are going to be
awfully disappointed to hear about this, Bill.
Nick
Darn. The shareholders in Nick's FTL Communications Corp. are going to be
awfully disappointed to hear about this, Bill.
Nick
Nick:
Also, the time delay would be considerably longer than a second for the
example postulated. A 'solid rod' is a lot less solid than it appears (even if
made of diamond).
73,
bill
Intuitivly, I would think that the inertia of the pole would solve the
problem…. I couldn't say _why_, but I think it would. –Ben–
Yes, I thought about that too, but I couldn't off-hand think of any reason why
the inertia (which is to say the mass) of the pole would matter – it's made of
something that is extraordinarily rigid, but not very dense. As opposed to
substances that are both very rigid _and_ very dense, such as ronaldreaganite.
Nick
Now there's a hard fact! Seriously, that question might bear some exploring,
and might be an answer — we are a long way from a pure understanding of
materials as of yet. Another idea concerns using a laser upon which one were to
impress phase shift modulation. If the laser beam can be show to be travelling
at light speed, a forward phase shift (any!) would cause the wave wavicle,
photon, whatever, to go faster — which if possible violates ALL the rules. My
immediate thought is that one would have to slow the whole thing down to add
such as phase shift, but I don't know that to be a fact. My math isn't up to
rigorous proof, either. But, since it takes little effort to _fire_ a laser
beam, and little effort to phase modulate it, one wonders…. –Ben–
gee, if you were to run a laser up to lightspeed and fire it… where would the
light go? –Ben–
"if you were to run a laser [gun] up to lightspeed and fire it, what would
happen to the light?"
The word "relativity" in special relativity comes from the fact that special
relativity assumes that ANY point of view is stationary. The rest of the
universe moves relative to it.
If you're sitting on a laser gun that *I* say is travelling .999c, you should
*SAY* that you're standing still and that I'm moving backwards at .999c. Thus,
from your point of view, any beam of light you produce moves at c.
If I watch that same beam, I too say that it travels at c.
Time and length factors distort for each of us so that that speed measurement
(length/time) remains constant. The math works for any speed less than c. If
you travel *AT* c, then you get divide-by-zero errors throughout the math
system we're using. As long as you are going less than c, there is no problem.
Even if you accellerate, the system provides its own diminishing returns
process.
../greg
"if you were to run a laser [gun] up to lightspeed and fire it, what would
happen to the light?"
The word "relativity" in special relativity comes from the fact that special
relativity assumes that ANY point of view is stationary. The rest of the
universe moves relative to it.
If you're sitting on a laser gun that *I* say is travelling .999c, you should
*SAY* that you're standing still and that I'm moving backwards at .999c. Thus,
from your point of view, any beam of light you produce moves at c.
If I watch that same beam, I too say that it travels at c.
Time and length factors distort for each of us so that that speed measurement
(length/time) remains constant. The math works for any speed less than c. If
you travel *AT* c, then you get divide-by-zero errors throughout the math
system we're using. As long as you are going less than c, there is no problem.
Even if you accellerate, the system provides its own diminishing returns
process.
../greg
gee, if you were to run a laser up to lightspeed and fire it… where would the
light go? –Ben–
Ben,
Materials are made up of atoms/molecules which are held together via
electromagnetic attraction and/or the weak nuclear force. As such, any attempt
to accelerate an ultra-light ultra-rigid device to anything approaching the
speed of light would cause an increase in mass of the faster moving part of the
bar vs the slower moving part of the bar thus, if nothing else, the "drag"
caused by inertia would be strong enough to overcome those bonds and allow the
bar to either bend or break.
Don
I wonder if the inertia of a bar of steel that was, say, long enough to circle
the globe at an orbital height in hard vaccum, would be related to the distance
that one end was from the other and c. You know, like, light would go x miles
in y minutes, bar is x, inertia is y*bar_length… ??? –Ben–
Ben,
No, I don't think so…I think the bar_length is related to the number
of tables in the place and expected customers. If they have few tables and
lots of customers…then they need a long bar so the customers can have a
cocktail while waiting for a table to come open. Make sense?
GRIN
Don
Ben,
No, I don't think so…I think the bar_length is related to the number
of tables in the place and expected customers. If they have few tables and
lots of customers…then they need a long bar so the customers can have a
cocktail while waiting for a table to come open. Make sense?
GRIN
Don
I wonder if the inertia of a bar of steel that was, say, long enough to circle
the globe at an orbital height in hard vaccum, would be related to the distance
that one end was from the other and c. You know, like, light would go x miles
in y minutes, bar is x, inertia is y*bar_length… ??? –Ben–
Ben,
Materials are made up of atoms/molecules which are held together via
electromagnetic attraction and/or the weak nuclear force. As such, any attempt
to accelerate an ultra-light ultra-rigid device to anything approaching the
speed of light would cause an increase in mass of the faster moving part of the
bar vs the slower moving part of the bar thus, if nothing else, the "drag"
caused by inertia would be strong enough to overcome those bonds and allow the
bar to either bend or break.
Don
Humm like a micrwave WAVEGUIDE explain that! Its puzzeled me for a long time.
And when you talk about speeds faster than 186282.356 MPS thats what you have
to be talking about TIME. A neat subject. But tough to understand.
By the Way the shirt is in the mail along with the PCLO+ card.
Humm like a micrwave WAVEGUIDE explain that! Its puzzeled me for a long time.
And when you talk about speeds faster than 186282.356 MPS thats what you have
to be talking about TIME. A neat subject. But tough to understand.
By the Way the shirt is in the mail along with the PCLO+ card.
Now there's a hard fact! Seriously, that question might bear some exploring,
and might be an answer — we are a long way from a pure understanding of
materials as of yet. Another idea concerns using a laser upon which one were to
impress phase shift modulation. If the laser beam can be show to be travelling
at light speed, a forward phase shift (any!) would cause the wave wavicle,
photon, whatever, to go faster — which if possible violates ALL the rules. My
immediate thought is that one would have to slow the whole thing down to add
such as phase shift, but I don't know that to be a fact. My math isn't up to
rigorous proof, either. But, since it takes little effort to _fire_ a laser
beam, and little effort to phase modulate it, one wonders…. –Ben–
Also, re my previous msg, if it can be done at _all_, it violates the rules; if
they are violated at _all_, then the whold house of cards comes down, and we
can laugh in the face of those who say "It Can't Be Done! It's Impossible! It's
A Universal Constant! We Know All ABout This! We Can Prove It Mathmatically!"
SO far, we have a good "laugh" record. Superconductivity? Ha HA HAHAHAHAt!
Earth Flat? HAR! Sun going round the Earth? Snicker. frequencies above 1.8 mhz
unusable? Snarf… The "Sound Barrier" unbreakable? <choke, grin> Life exists
only on earth? heh heh heh. (Meteors) Those who claim Absolute knowledge are
usually blind as a bat and keep twice as high a pile of guano under their
desks. –Ben–
Those who fail to distinguish between problems associated with speeds
supersonic and superluminal are more to be pitied than censured. 🙂
Those who said no way to supersonic BEFORE it was achieved included many
respected scientists… and their calculations about the effects of travelling
at those rates. I think the current situation is very similar. We will see what
happens when we get some kind of reasonable energy source, like a fusion
reactor, or possibly some total conversion scheme no one's though up yet.
–Ben–
The question is whether macroscopic bodies exhibit the same relativistic
effects as subatomic and atomic particles. If so, then it will be quite some
time before anybody exceeds the sort of speeds achieved in modern accelerators,
with say a 1000 ton ship. Relativistic particles behave precisely according to
Einstein.
That is indeed the question — and personally, I would think that they do…
that's very powerful evidence that they would… however, it's _not_ proof.
We'll have proof when we try it! –Ben–
The question is whether macroscopic bodies exhibit the same relativistic
effects as subatomic and atomic particles. If so, then it will be quite some
time before anybody exceeds the sort of speeds achieved in modern accelerators,
with say a 1000 ton ship. Relativistic particles behave precisely according to
Einstein.
Those who said no way to supersonic BEFORE it was achieved included many
respected scientists… and their calculations about the effects of travelling
at those rates. I think the current situation is very similar. We will see what
happens when we get some kind of reasonable energy source, like a fusion
reactor, or possibly some total conversion scheme no one's though up yet.
–Ben–
Those who fail to distinguish between problems associated with speeds
supersonic and superluminal are more to be pitied than censured. 🙂
Well, I'll agree with Tom that superluminal is a very different kettle of
cheese than supersonic. If speeds beyond that of light are in any way
achievable, I'd bet anything but my RKM that they won't be achieved by bolting
more thrusters on the butt of a spaceship – we probably both trust Albert
_that_ far. That leaves worm holes, space warps and similar standbys from SF
space-time geometrical musing as the current alternatives, but the technology
to exploit those phenomena is not quite ready to market (unless, of course, CBM
has developed a warp drive but hasn't got around to advertising it yet).
So if the proposition is "faster than light travel will never be achieved by
any means now available", I'd agree readily and live with the guano under my
desk. I'd be less comfortable denying the possibility that some way around the
ultimate speed limit will never be discovered… an enlargement or
reformulation of relativity theory could conceivably lead to some way of
bending the rules.
I don't think your phase-shifted laser beam idea really offers a ray of hope
(witty, huh?). Somehow accelerating light beyond the speed of light doesn't
sound quite right, though I don't have enough physics to say exactly why not
(as you may have divined by now). How about a modulated gravitational field?
Does Einstein have anything to say about the time it would take for the gravity
from a newly created mass to be felt at a given distance? Or what about those
experiments in which altering the spin on one sub-atomic particle
_instanteously_ alters the spin of a fellow particle some distance away? That
would seem to offer a possibility of FTL signal transmission – hell, with a
little R&D, maybe even FTL computers. Let's see how the Sieve runs on one of
_those_ babies. 🙂
Nick
Unfortunately, in a FTL computer, the result arrives before the problem is
posed, and since there is no longer a need to actually calculate the answer, it
doesn't bother. Really kills the MIPS rate.
Regards, Larry.
Hmm, good point… it's going to be hard to promote. Could raise flak in the
developer community, too. If that ray-trace you're running is finished before
you've even bought the software, FTL Computers could have trouble building a
good software base. Scrap the project, I guess.
Nick
Hmm, good point… it's going to be hard to promote. Could raise flak in the
developer community, too. If that ray-trace you're running is finished before
you've even bought the software, FTL Computers could have trouble building a
good software base. Scrap the project, I guess.
Nick
Unfortunately, in a FTL computer, the result arrives before the problem is
posed, and since there is no longer a need to actually calculate the answer, it
doesn't bother. Really kills the MIPS rate.
Regards, Larry.
That's all I ever said — and I do trust Albert pretty far… but not to the
point where what he says is the absolute answer. He made the very firm point
that he did _not_ understand the nature of either gravity _or_ magnetism, and
was unable to include them in a complete way into the relativity theory
everyone refers to… his Unified Field theory never was realized, and simply
because he did not have all the information or he was unable to put it all
together. That's my basis for hope. I trust him as far as he goes… which is
NOT all the way. Until all the bases are covered, the games still in play,
y'know? –Ben–
No argument.
Nick
No argument.
Nick
'Cities in Flight'?
'Cities in Flight'?
That's all I ever said — and I do trust Albert pretty far… but not to the
point where what he says is the absolute answer. He made the very firm point
that he did _not_ understand the nature of either gravity _or_ magnetism, and
was unable to include them in a complete way into the relativity theory
everyone refers to… his Unified Field theory never was realized, and simply
because he did not have all the information or he was unable to put it all
together. That's my basis for hope. I trust him as far as he goes… which is
NOT all the way. Until all the bases are covered, the games still in play,
y'know? –Ben–
( notice you won't bet your RKM on that… Albert probably wouldn't
have bet a dollar on it. He _knew_ he didn't ahve it all down… )
–Ben–
Well, I'll agree with Tom that superluminal is a very different kettle of
cheese than supersonic. If speeds beyond that of light are in any way
achievable, I'd bet anything but my RKM that they won't be achieved by bolting
more thrusters on the butt of a spaceship – we probably both trust Albert
_that_ far. That leaves worm holes, space warps and similar standbys from SF
space-time geometrical musing as the current alternatives, but the technology
to exploit those phenomena is not quite ready to market (unless, of course, CBM
has developed a warp drive but hasn't got around to advertising it yet).
So if the proposition is "faster than light travel will never be achieved by
any means now available", I'd agree readily and live with the guano under my
desk. I'd be less comfortable denying the possibility that some way around the
ultimate speed limit will never be discovered… an enlargement or
reformulation of relativity theory could conceivably lead to some way of
bending the rules.
I don't think your phase-shifted laser beam idea really offers a ray of hope
(witty, huh?). Somehow accelerating light beyond the speed of light doesn't
sound quite right, though I don't have enough physics to say exactly why not
(as you may have divined by now). How about a modulated gravitational field?
Does Einstein have anything to say about the time it would take for the gravity
from a newly created mass to be felt at a given distance? Or what about those
experiments in which altering the spin on one sub-atomic particle
_instanteously_ alters the spin of a fellow particle some distance away? That
would seem to offer a possibility of FTL signal transmission – hell, with a
little R&D, maybe even FTL computers. Let's see how the Sieve runs on one of
_those_ babies. 🙂
Nick
Also, re my previous msg, if it can be done at _all_, it violates the rules; if
they are violated at _all_, then the whold house of cards comes down, and we
can laugh in the face of those who say "It Can't Be Done! It's Impossible! It's
A Universal Constant! We Know All ABout This! We Can Prove It Mathmatically!"
SO far, we have a good "laugh" record. Superconductivity? Ha HA HAHAHAHAt!
Earth Flat? HAR! Sun going round the Earth? Snicker. frequencies above 1.8 mhz
unusable? Snarf… The "Sound Barrier" unbreakable? <choke, grin> Life exists
only on earth? heh heh heh. (Meteors) Those who claim Absolute knowledge are
usually blind as a bat and keep twice as high a pile of guano under their
desks. –Ben–
Yes, I thought about that too, but I couldn't off-hand think of any reason why
the inertia (which is to say the mass) of the pole would matter – it's made of
something that is extraordinarily rigid, but not very dense. As opposed to
substances that are both very rigid _and_ very dense, such as ronaldreaganite.
Nick
Intuitivly, I would think that the inertia of the pole would solve the
problem…. I couldn't say _why_, but I think it would. –Ben–
Tuning _could_ be dispensed with, if it's similar to light, which we can
percieve a fair range of with reasonbly equal efficiency. –Ben–
Yes, though the eye is equipped with multiple receptors having peak
sensitivities at different wavelengths; telepathic reception could adopt the
same strategy. However, light is only distinct from other electromagnetic
radiation in that our eyes _can_ perceive it and not other wavelengths, so that
still leaves open the possibility of psychon waves at frequencies our
particular set of receptors is not equipped to handle.
Nick
"I am not mad. There are colors we cannot see.
"God save us! The Damned Thing is such a color!"
– Ambrose Bierce, 'The Damned Thing,' ca. 1900.
Do anyone think one could make oneself invisible by bathing in ultraviolet
paint? Does anyone think 'ultraviolet paint' is a concept of science fiction,
while 'Ring of Invisibility' is fantasy?
Now _that_ sounds interesting. I never heard of Ambrose Bierce except in
connection with the Devil's Dictionary – is 'The Damned Thing' a novel? A poem?
Or a two-line graffito?
Anyway, I'll walk into this one. I would say, yes, 'ultraviolet paint' is a
concept (a pathetically weak one) of science fiction; and yes, Ring of
Invisibility is a concept of fantasy. At least, that's how they strike me, I
guess because the former attempts to explain itself in scientific terms; the
latter makes no explanation at all (beyond: "This ring will make you invisible
if you wear it because it has the property of making its wearer invisible".)
Unlike a lot of people here, it seems, I'm not bothered by a fantasy's
'failure' to explain. In science fiction, the explanations can be a lot of fun,
but will rarely either make or break a story. In fantasy, as in (say) Greek
myth, or Macbeth, explanations are generally a waste of time, since the point
is, perhaps, to extend the range of story-telling by admitting a few impossible
premises, then for the sake of the story ignoring their impossibility.
Nick
"… Ring of Invisibility… makes no explanation at all…"
Not in every case. I have read fantasy which does attempt to explain how magic
works. A group of local GMs have a compelete FRP fantasy world, compelete with
a treatise on magic, which is nothing more than a method of weaving a
trans-dimensional matrix which resonates with, and focuses, magical power in a
certain fashion to do whatever is done. In the case of a ring of invisibility,
the matrix causes a selective bending of light which causes the wearer to
appear to not be there… but only under specific circumstances. Which is not
really different from an SF description of how a force field generator might
work. 8)
Point only being that I still maintain the distinction between SF and Fantasy
can at times be blurry.
Rick
"…nothing more than a method of weaving a trans-dimensional matrix which
resonates with, and focuses, magical power…" Hmph. Well, if _that's_ all it
is, what's the big deal? 🙂
It doesn't seem fair to explain magic in a way that depends on "magical power";
how then does the treatise explain the latter? My preference is that fantasy
authors should _not_ attempt to explain magic; there's too much danger of
crossing the line from good fantasy into execrable science fiction in doing so.
Besides, it takes the magic out of it somehow.
I agree, it's a blurry line. A lot of the best lines are.
Nick
"…nothing more than a method of weaving a trans-dimensional matrix which
resonates with, and focuses, magical power…" Hmph. Well, if _that's_ all it
is, what's the big deal? 🙂
It doesn't seem fair to explain magic in a way that depends on "magical power";
how then does the treatise explain the latter? My preference is that fantasy
authors should _not_ attempt to explain magic; there's too much danger of
crossing the line from good fantasy into execrable science fiction in doing so.
Besides, it takes the magic out of it somehow.
I agree, it's a blurry line. A lot of the best lines are.
Nick
"… Ring of Invisibility… makes no explanation at all…"
Not in every case. I have read fantasy which does attempt to explain how magic
works. A group of local GMs have a compelete FRP fantasy world, compelete with
a treatise on magic, which is nothing more than a method of weaving a
trans-dimensional matrix which resonates with, and focuses, magical power in a
certain fashion to do whatever is done. In the case of a ring of invisibility,
the matrix causes a selective bending of light which causes the wearer to
appear to not be there… but only under specific circumstances. Which is not
really different from an SF description of how a force field generator might
work. 8)
Point only being that I still maintain the distinction between SF and Fantasy
can at times be blurry.
Rick
Now _that_ sounds interesting. I never heard of Ambrose Bierce except in
connection with the Devil's Dictionary – is 'The Damned Thing' a novel? A poem?
Or a two-line graffito?
Anyway, I'll walk into this one. I would say, yes, 'ultraviolet paint' is a
concept (a pathetically weak one) of science fiction; and yes, Ring of
Invisibility is a concept of fantasy. At least, that's how they strike me, I
guess because the former attempts to explain itself in scientific terms; the
latter makes no explanation at all (beyond: "This ring will make you invisible
if you wear it because it has the property of making its wearer invisible".)
Unlike a lot of people here, it seems, I'm not bothered by a fantasy's
'failure' to explain. In science fiction, the explanations can be a lot of fun,
but will rarely either make or break a story. In fantasy, as in (say) Greek
myth, or Macbeth, explanations are generally a waste of time, since the point
is, perhaps, to extend the range of story-telling by admitting a few impossible
premises, then for the sake of the story ignoring their impossibility.
Nick
bathing in ultraviolet paint would make it impossible to dicern _your_
features, surely enough, but it would not do _anything_ about the occlusion you
make in the background that is otherwise visible to the observer you wish to be
invisible to. Optics has not advanced far enough (not to mention the other
disciplines required) to fashion a paint, costume, or other flexible object
that would pass light around/through the area you are in effectively enough to
make you invisible. And Other than that, I think you are out of luck. How about
a phase change? Gee, I'm out of phase… think I'll walk through that wall….
bathing in ultraviolet paint would make it impossible to dicern _your_
features, surely enough, but it would not do _anything_ about the occlusion you
make in the background that is otherwise visible to the observer you wish to be
invisible to. Optics has not advanced far enough (not to mention the other
disciplines required) to fashion a paint, costume, or other flexible object
that would pass light around/through the area you are in effectively enough to
make you invisible. And Other than that, I think you are out of luck. How about
a phase change? Gee, I'm out of phase… think I'll walk through that wall….
"I am not mad. There are colors we cannot see.
"God save us! The Damned Thing is such a color!"
– Ambrose Bierce, 'The Damned Thing,' ca. 1900.
Do anyone think one could make oneself invisible by bathing in ultraviolet
paint? Does anyone think 'ultraviolet paint' is a concept of science fiction,
while 'Ring of Invisibility' is fantasy?
Yes, though the eye is equipped with multiple receptors having peak
sensitivities at different wavelengths; telepathic reception could adopt the
same strategy. However, light is only distinct from other electromagnetic
radiation in that our eyes _can_ perceive it and not other wavelengths, so that
still leaves open the possibility of psychon waves at frequencies our
particular set of receptors is not equipped to handle.
Nick
Tuning _could_ be dispensed with, if it's similar to light, which we can
percieve a fair range of with reasonbly equal efficiency. –Ben–
also, the _is_ such a thing as "pure" info substance. on or off are the two
states. info substance present, or not. binary, just like your computer.
–Ben–
Ben, on and off are pure info concepts, but they are not substantial. You can't
express on and off without some medium to express them _with_ – in the case of
the computer, that being the presence or absence of a signal, which in itself
is related to the info by convention only.
Nick
Nick — on and off, related to time, as in the case of morse code used in ham
radio, _do_ express concepts simply related to time. and when the data rate is
lower than some particular value that I couldn't possibly quote to you, there
is no bandwidth to the signal to speak of. –Ben–
Sure, Ben, but the point is you can't have information transfer without some
kind of modulated carrier, whether that is a radio signal, the atmosphere, a
papyrus or whatever. "Pure" information doesn't exist – you can't give me
information without giving me something else that carries the information on
its back. Is this what you're disagreeing with, or am I missing something?
Nick
CW is an _unmodulated_ carrier — and it carries information. the information
is only modulated to the extent that both the transmitting and recieving
parties are aware of a time scale that the carrier's presence is "beaten"
against to get the information out. For example, I send a constant and
unchanging stream of "psychons". This tells you I am alive, which is
information. Said Psychon wave cuts off for five hours every 24 hour period —
said info tells you I'm sleeping. Unless you include on/off as modulation
(which you can, technically, especially if it's happening at any kind of
noticable rate) an unmodulated carrier can indeed carry information. –Ben–
Well, I _would_ count that as modulation, yes. By the way, when your psychon
wave cuts off for those 5 hours, I do not know you're sleeping. Since, when the
wave if present, I know that you're (awake AND alive), when it cuts off, I know
only that you're ((NOT awake) OR (NOT alive)).
Nick
No, because I said 5 hours. You know, at 5 hours+1 minute that I'm dead,
assuming psychon emission does not begin (unless, of course, I'm having a
psywet dream…) (never mind) <slinking away> –Ben–
(rather glad not to be telepathic, in this instance)
Nick
You can count on it. Only females would enjoy reading my mind. Males would
suffer terminal ego-destruction. <grin> –Ben–
(rather glad not to be telepathic, in this instance)
Nick
Well, I _would_ count that as modulation, yes. By the way, when your psychon
wave cuts off for those 5 hours, I do not know you're sleeping. Since, when the
wave if present, I know that you're (awake AND alive), when it cuts off, I know
only that you're ((NOT awake) OR (NOT alive)).
Nick
CW is an _unmodulated_ carrier — and it carries information. the information
is only modulated to the extent that both the transmitting and recieving
parties are aware of a time scale that the carrier's presence is "beaten"
against to get the information out. For example, I send a constant and
unchanging stream of "psychons". This tells you I am alive, which is
information. Said Psychon wave cuts off for five hours every 24 hour period —
said info tells you I'm sleeping. Unless you include on/off as modulation
(which you can, technically, especially if it's happening at any kind of
noticable rate) an unmodulated carrier can indeed carry information. –Ben–
Sure, Ben, but the point is you can't have information transfer without some
kind of modulated carrier, whether that is a radio signal, the atmosphere, a
papyrus or whatever. "Pure" information doesn't exist – you can't give me
information without giving me something else that carries the information on
its back. Is this what you're disagreeing with, or am I missing something?
Nick
Nick — on and off, related to time, as in the case of morse code used in ham
radio, _do_ express concepts simply related to time. and when the data rate is
lower than some particular value that I couldn't possibly quote to you, there
is no bandwidth to the signal to speak of. –Ben–
Ben, on and off are pure info concepts, but they are not substantial. You can't
express on and off without some medium to express them _with_ – in the case of
the computer, that being the presence or absence of a signal, which in itself
is related to the info by convention only.
Nick
also, the _is_ such a thing as "pure" info substance. on or off are the two
states. info substance present, or not. binary, just like your computer.
–Ben–
Rods move because their component atoms move. Atoms (in a crystal, say) are
bound via electromagnetism. The fastest one atom can 'bump' another is the
speed at which the electromagnetic force is communicatesd. So, yes, the other
end of the rod would move about a second later.
Okay, Tom, that makes sense. I don't suppose I could find an out by building my
rod out of packed neutron material scooped up from Sirius B, huh? (Is there a
name for that stuff, btw?)
Nick
The packed neutron idea arises because try as we might, we keep visualizing
atomic particles as 'solids.' I think either Rutherford or Bohr admitted, late
in life, 'you know, I think about atoms as little red billiard balls.'
Neutrons are themselves mostly empty space, at least if you try to bang on them
with a neutrino. They aren't 'spheres' of continuous material. The 'edge' of
a neutron is not really like the shell of an egg; it's a quantum thing of
dubious location.
Once one is down at a small enough level to talk about particles which have no
component parts, and thus should move the way one imagines one's '100% rigid
rod' moving, one is no longer talking about something with definite location or
momentum, and if I cannot know where or how fast my particle is moving, I
cannot transmit information with it by giving it a jiggle.
Thanks for the elucidation, Tom. It all sounds depressingly reasonable (to the
extent that particle behaviour under quantum physics ever sounds reasonable).
Oh well, saves a trip to Sirius B, anyhow.
Nick
Thanks for the elucidation, Tom. It all sounds depressingly reasonable (to the
extent that particle behaviour under quantum physics ever sounds reasonable).
Oh well, saves a trip to Sirius B, anyhow.
Nick
Of course, if, in reality, atom are NOT little red billiard balls, but quantum
energies of dubious but probable location (my physics professor's words) then
perhaps Mr Einstein, who was not conversant with this particular extension of
his view of the world, is wrong. Perhaps, when one reaches those speeds, the
probability of an particle being somewhere gets so unlikely that it really
isn't _any_ of those places. It end up somewhere else.
Gee, I kind of like that. Maybe I'll put it in my next book.
–Ben–
Of course, if, in reality, atom are NOT little red billiard balls, but quantum
energies of dubious but probable location (my physics professor's words) then
perhaps Mr Einstein, who was not conversant with this particular extension of
his view of the world, is wrong. Perhaps, when one reaches those speeds, the
probability of an particle being somewhere gets so unlikely that it really
isn't _any_ of those places. It end up somewhere else.
Gee, I kind of like that. Maybe I'll put it in my next book.
–Ben–
The packed neutron idea arises because try as we might, we keep visualizing
atomic particles as 'solids.' I think either Rutherford or Bohr admitted, late
in life, 'you know, I think about atoms as little red billiard balls.'
Neutrons are themselves mostly empty space, at least if you try to bang on them
with a neutrino. They aren't 'spheres' of continuous material. The 'edge' of
a neutron is not really like the shell of an egg; it's a quantum thing of
dubious location.
Once one is down at a small enough level to talk about particles which have no
component parts, and thus should move the way one imagines one's '100% rigid
rod' moving, one is no longer talking about something with definite location or
momentum, and if I cannot know where or how fast my particle is moving, I
cannot transmit information with it by giving it a jiggle.
The standard term for the material you speak of is "Neutronium" in science
fiction. You have to bind your rod with some kind of force field to prevent it
from expanding into standard atoms again now that you've removed it from the
gravity-induced pressure that served that function before.
../greg
That's interesting. What is the nature of the repulsive force that would
re-differentiate the neutrons? I've always had the idea that what kept the
electrons in an atom from collapsing in on the nucleus – i.e. succumbing to the
attraction of the protons there – was simply their energy of motion, same as
keeps the moon in the sky instead falling down on our heads. Now once that
collapse has been achieved (due to gravity) and the electrons have bound to the
protons as neutronium, why should the removal of the gravity (or of the
neutronium _from_ the gravity, as it's being trucked to my rod-manufacturing
plant) cause the collapsed atoms to reconfigure, since the electrons are now
without kinetic energy and in fact are no longer individuated at all?
Nick
That's interesting. What is the nature of the repulsive force that would
re-differentiate the neutrons? I've always had the idea that what kept the
electrons in an atom from collapsing in on the nucleus – i.e. succumbing to the
attraction of the protons there – was simply their energy of motion, same as
keeps the moon in the sky instead falling down on our heads. Now once that
collapse has been achieved (due to gravity) and the electrons have bound to the
protons as neutronium, why should the removal of the gravity (or of the
neutronium _from_ the gravity, as it's being trucked to my rod-manufacturing
plant) cause the collapsed atoms to reconfigure, since the electrons are now
without kinetic energy and in fact are no longer individuated at all?
Nick
The standard term for the material you speak of is "Neutronium" in science
fiction. You have to bind your rod with some kind of force field to prevent it
from expanding into standard atoms again now that you've removed it from the
gravity-induced pressure that served that function before.
../greg
Okay, Tom, that makes sense. I don't suppose I could find an out by building my
rod out of packed neutron material scooped up from Sirius B, huh? (Is there a
name for that stuff, btw?)
Nick
Magnetism is not fully understood… so you should say, "according to the
current theory" <smile> –Ben–
Rods move because their component atoms move. Atoms (in a crystal, say) are
bound via electromagnetism. The fastest one atom can 'bump' another is the
speed at which the electromagnetic force is communicatesd. So, yes, the other
end of the rod would move about a second later.
I'll take a crack at it, Nick, even knowing my limited grasp of physics.
For an object to be 100% rigid, it would have to be infinitely dense, which
would imply infinite mass. Which means to move one end would take infinite
energy… which I believe is what Einstein said it would take to exceed the
speed of light.
All wet?
Rick
I don't buy that one, Rick. Density and rigidity are not necessarily
correlates… for a counterexample consider iron and lead.
Nick
Nick,
Of the 4 forces know to exist in nature (strong, weak, electromagnetic
and gravitational) the one that has the most binding power is the strong. To
create a completely rigid object of discrete particles…you would need the
strongest possible binding force, thus you would require the strong nforce.
That wouldn't be too bad, except that the strong force can only act
over sub-atomic distances. Thus to bind via the strong force, you'd need to
get the separate and discrete particles that make up the rod close enough
together for the strong force to come into play. An object bound that way is
known as a neutron star.
The only way to get things even closer is via gravity. Since gravity
is so weak on a per object basis…you need lots and lots of those discrete
particles to get enough combined gravitational force to be stronger than the
strong force…in other words, lots of mass, enough in fact to create a black
hole.
In any event…a visible quanity of a neutron star would weigh billions
of tons. An equivalent sized portion of a black hole would weigh even more. So
in the case stated by Rick…density and rigidity do in fact go hand in hand.
Don
Well, I've already proposed neutronium as the material for the rod, and been
shot down. As for hacking out a chunk of a black hole… hmmm, sounds risky,
Don! Actually, since beyond the event horizon of a black hole (they say) the
standard laws of physics cannot be held to apply, maybe it's _not_ rigid in
there, after all. Maybe it's tapioca.
Nick
_dense_ tapioca….
Unquestionably… but it's the flavour, not the texture, keeps'em coming back
for more.
Nick
Unquestionably… but it's the flavour, not the texture, keeps'em coming back
for more.
Nick
Nick,
Black holes are strange ducks…I read an article in Scientific
American where some physicist had developed a method whereby a black hole could
in fact lose material ("evaporate").
Don
Don, yes, I read that one too. It was a neat idea – it depended on the
instability of a total vacuum, which takes a little getting used to.
Nick
Don, yes, I read that one too. It was a neat idea – it depended on the
instability of a total vacuum, which takes a little getting used to.
Nick
Nick,
Black holes are strange ducks…I read an article in Scientific
American where some physicist had developed a method whereby a black hole could
in fact lose material ("evaporate").
Don
Well, I've already proposed neutronium as the material for the rod, and been
shot down. As for hacking out a chunk of a black hole… hmmm, sounds risky,
Don! Actually, since beyond the event horizon of a black hole (they say) the
standard laws of physics cannot be held to apply, maybe it's _not_ rigid in
there, after all. Maybe it's tapioca.
Nick
Nick,
Of the 4 forces know to exist in nature (strong, weak, electromagnetic
and gravitational) the one that has the most binding power is the strong. To
create a completely rigid object of discrete particles…you would need the
strongest possible binding force, thus you would require the strong nforce.
That wouldn't be too bad, except that the strong force can only act
over sub-atomic distances. Thus to bind via the strong force, you'd need to
get the separate and discrete particles that make up the rod close enough
together for the strong force to come into play. An object bound that way is
known as a neutron star.
The only way to get things even closer is via gravity. Since gravity
is so weak on a per object basis…you need lots and lots of those discrete
particles to get enough combined gravitational force to be stronger than the
strong force…in other words, lots of mass, enough in fact to create a black
hole.
In any event…a visible quanity of a neutron star would weigh billions
of tons. An equivalent sized portion of a black hole would weigh even more. So
in the case stated by Rick…density and rigidity do in fact go hand in hand.
Don
I don't buy that one, Rick. Density and rigidity are not necessarily
correlates… for a counterexample consider iron and lead.
Nick
I'll take a crack at it, Nick, even knowing my limited grasp of physics.
For an object to be 100% rigid, it would have to be infinitely dense, which
would imply infinite mass. Which means to move one end would take infinite
energy… which I believe is what Einstein said it would take to exceed the
speed of light.
All wet?
Rick
"A 100% rigid…" doesn't exist. The pressure wave you are proposing will
propogate through the rod at the rod's speed of sound. In extreme rigidities,
we can look at the fact that the rod is held together by electromagnetic forces
and specify the theoretical limit for electromagnetic propagation (c). Since no
material provides a speed of sound anywhere near the same magnitude as c, we
won't worry about it.
../greg
Greg, are you saying that if I push my mouse across my desk the far end of the
mouse moves later than the near end by an amount proportional to the speed of
sound in the mouse? Sounds unlikely to me.
Nick
Greg, are you saying that if I push my mouse across my desk the far end of the
mouse moves later than the near end by an amount proportional to the speed of
sound in the mouse? Sounds unlikely to me.
Nick
Gee greg, I don't think you can (c) copyright the theoretical limit for
electromagnetic propogation.
Regards, Larry.
Gee greg, I don't think you can (c) copyright the theoretical limit for
electromagnetic propogation.
Regards, Larry.
"A 100% rigid…" doesn't exist. The pressure wave you are proposing will
propogate through the rod at the rod's speed of sound. In extreme rigidities,
we can look at the fact that the rod is held together by electromagnetic forces
and specify the theoretical limit for electromagnetic propagation (c). Since no
material provides a speed of sound anywhere near the same magnitude as c, we
won't worry about it.
../greg