Anybody?

natirips · **Posted:** 10.30.10

As for the inflation of the universe, it's not really movement with kinetic energy/momentum, it's more like changing a parameter that guides the universe. Like changing a universal constant, like speed of light in vacuum.

However, my theory is that inflation of the universe is a "local" phenomena in time-space, caused by the big bang. Lots of matter (the whole universe as it was born) moved rapidly outward at the time, thus it must've created a tremendous gravitational wave and anything floating in space right now (i.e. stars) is like oil on top the ocean. Imagine you dropped a kiloton of oil condensed into a cubic millimeter on the surface of the ocean. A kiloton is a kiloton and would make huge waves, and oil would float on the surface and spreading all over the place at high speed, just like the big bang. And what happens to the distance of floating drops of oil?

Attachment:

wave.png [ 2.08 KiB | Viewed 4470 times ]

I believe something alike is happening to the universe.

SKracht · **Joined:** 05.08.09 **Posts:** 437 **Location:** Germany

Wow, very nice and metaphoric description.

Next Topic: Higgs-Boson or the logic of omnipotence better known as "Immovable Object, meet Unstoppable Force" :lol:

havoc · **Joined:** 06.26.09 **Posts:** 674

here's some more on entanglement and speed of light by Michio Kaku:

Quote:

3. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. If I have two electrons close together, they can vibrate in unison, according to the quantum theory. If I then separate them, an invisible umbilical cord emerges which connects the two electrons, even though they may be separated by many light years. If I jiggle one electron, the other electron "senses" this vibration instantly, faster than the speed of light. Einstein thought that this therefore disproved the quantum theory, since nothing can go faster than light.

But actually this experiment (the EPR experiment) has been done many times, and each time Einstein was wrong. Information does go faster than light, but Einstein has the last laugh. This is because the information that breaks the light barrier is random, and hence useless. (For example, let's say a friend always wears one red sock and one green sock. You don't know which leg wears which sock. If you suddenly see that one foot has a red sock, then you know instantly, faster than the speed of light, that the other sock is green. But this information is useless. You cannot send Morse code or usable information via red and green socks.)

rest here

eXtr33m · **Posted:** 11.12.10

OMGOMG!! GEEZ I FOUND SOMETHING NEW!! i can travel a information faster than light!!
Experiment: Make a green paper and cover it with white paper. Make red and cover it with white paper too. Now shuffle them and give them to persons A and B. Send each persons to ohter end of universe then say one to look whats the color of his paper is. AND NOW HE KNOWS WHAT IS THE COLOR OF OTHERS PERSON paper!!! wooooow the so called "information" is so fast!
Give me a Nobel prize!!!

Now really:

Quote:

But actually this experiment (the EPR experiment) has been done many times, and each time Einstein was wrong. Information does go faster than light, but Einstein has the last laugh. This is because the information that breaks the light barrier is random, and hence useless. (For example, let's say a friend always wears one red sock and one green sock. You don't know which leg wears which sock. If you suddenly see that one foot has a red sock, then you know instantly, faster than the speed of light, that the other sock is green. But this information is useless. You cannot send Morse code or usable information via red and green socks.)

How can you prove its your information if its random? ......

natirips · **Posted:** 11.12.10

eXtr33m wrote:

How can you prove its your information if its random? ......

I think he was trying to say something like this: what does it matter to you if he has a red or a green sock on the other leg, it's not you (who's reading the information) who sent the information, it's the person who put the first sock on his foot.

In other words, the person carrying socks was still traveling at speed lower than lightspeed. So you got some information, but it's of no use to you.

Attachment:

flashlight.png [ 4.84 KiB | Viewed 6187 times ]

Person at C sends a pulse of light into the night sky. Person at A receives the pulse 1000 years later and knows instantly that person B has got the same signal at the same time. However, person A and person B did not communicate in this process, so to them it's useless, since none of them sent the signal.

The same goes with entangled electrons, electrons themselves did not travel at speed >c, so when we measure spin of one of them we know the spin of the other one, but like we care about it (especially since we can't tell where the other one ended up in the mean time).

You could, however, use this to synchronize two distant entities.

eXtr33m · **Posted:** 11.12.10

natirips wrote:

...

Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is an ordered sequence of symbols. As a concept, however, information has many meanings.[1] Moreover, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation.

from Wiki.

i was talking about jiggling entanglet electrons.

sry i wouldnt call it information. Again are the physicists using bad words? There is no information sent. You know that information from begining, that they are opposites.

You could synchronize two devices in only s/2*c seconds.. (if the signal wasnt diffused)
Peace :mrgreen:

natirips · **Posted:** 11.12.10

Using a spherical wavefront of light you can sync arbitrary amount of devices. But devices being synchronized are not communication with each other through the process of synchronization. (One device in this situation can't tell another device "what he ate for breakfast" through the sync itself.)

Now let me try describing better why entangled electrons would give "random"=useless information: if we're expecting it (i.e. an experiment in a lab) we know already all the information we can possibly get, but it we are not expecting it (i.e. interstellar communication) we don't know if the electron which is supposed to carry the information is such an entangled electron that is carrying a message, or if it's just a random stray electron floating in space that has accidentally hit out detector.

Imagine a computer network full of stray packets with random (spontaneous) content. That's what our space is like.

havoc · **Joined:** 06.26.09 **Posts:** 674

eXtr33m - i was writing an essay to answer you, but... whatever.
lets just say you have kinda wrong idea about stuff :) incl. what information is.

anyway if you think quantum theories are shit, you are free to do better yourself. i would be most pleased to personally know the man who solved those mysteries :)

eXtr33m · **Posted:** 02.12.11

I just cant read about quantum physics anymore, i always read about entanglement and i get blown.. i simply cant understand whats the 'science' in this

natirips · **Posted:** 02.12.11

eXtr33m wrote:

I just cant read about quantum physics anymore, i always read about entanglement and i get blown.. i simply cant understand whats the 'science' in this

Quantum physics is more like math than like physics. Or, to be more precise, it's a branch of statistics. There is almost nothing to understand in quantum physics, it's mostly statistical facts from a zillion experiments lined up together. Things just are that way, there's no fundamental understanding of it as of right now.

Unlike the kinetic theory of gases, where fundamental physics was known for a long time and was statistically applied; in quantum physics there's only the statistical part (as of right now).

Anybody?

Who is online