Theory

GordyR · 14 May 2007 at 11:42

Barbie said:
The carrot doesn't move as one entity. Relativistic effects are minute at day to day velocities, but it could be calculated and measured. The carrot would be a fraction of a nanometer (probably less) shorter as you wait for the front end to start moving, compared with the back end.

It's probably less than the diameter of an atomic nucleus, but it's still measureable.

BTW, i do have a masters degree in physics, i SHOULD know this stuff (though it has been a few years, so dont get me to calculate anything)

Finally someone has pointed out the obvious! Thank you Barbie

I was getting wound up all the way through reading this thread because quite simply... The communication wouldn't be instantaneous anyway!

dcolyer - I applaud anyone who takes it upon themselves to be creative and come up with new ideas. Unfortunately your idea is extremely flawed in that the device would not do what you intend it to do even if it could be constructed. Your understanding of physics is obviously very simple, which is nothing to be ashamed of mate, but I would suggest putting your efforts in to something in which you have a greater understanding of the underlying principles.

Sleepy · 14 May 2007 at 11:44

Zip said:
Its clear you havnt been here long

Sleepy · 14 May 2007 at 11:47

Barbie said:
Even a perfectly indesructible, uncompressable solid pole would still be limited by relativity. The movement of the other end can not be instantaneous, relativity forbids it

I'd disagree with you here, by using a light rigid pole you've allready thrown current physics out the window, so anything goes

manoz · 14 May 2007 at 11:48

Barbie said:
Less than 8 minutes at rest. Remember for a moving object, time for that object slows down compared to a stationary observer.

So for a particle at near the speed of light, 1 minute for it could be a month, even a year for someone on earth.

ho hum, I was thinking that when I typed it but it went through me, guess I find the speed of light rather dull and see no reason why "everything" should be restricted to it.

Gilly · 14 May 2007 at 11:49

Sleepy said:
I'd disagree with you here, by using a light rigid pole yo've allready thrown current physics out the window, so anything goes

He's been banned anyway. I was only leaving him past a certain point as he was entertaining me. He went offline so was banned for being a returnee.

ferretmaster · 14 May 2007 at 11:51

Gilly said:
The best (and only) feasible idea you came up with was relay stations. Remove the poles and we'll be able to talk to one another

You could even connect these relay stations up with fibre optics as mentioned previously. This would mean the materials used, though prohibitively costly, actually exist.

Why don't you connect a lot of carrots together and see if your neighbour can understand you.

What about fibre optic attenution? Fibre optics would be no good over large distance. Even the pole idea is better than fibre optics. I think he is deadly serious about this idea. Maybe people should try and improve on it rather than shoot it down?

Gilly · 14 May 2007 at 11:53

ferretmaster said:
What about fibre optic attenution? Fibre optics would be no good over large distance. Even the pole idea is better than fibre optics. I think he is deadly serious about this idea. Maybe people should try and improve on it rather than shoot it down?

Improve on a theory that uses an unknown substance to make it work, and is based on very inaccurate assumptions?

I'd rather have attenuation and my message have a chance of getting to the other side using materials that exist thanks

GordyR · 14 May 2007 at 11:54

ferretmaster said:
Maybe people should try and improve on it rather than shoot it down?

Did you read the posts by Barbie and myself?

Regardless of the material used, the communication would not be instaneous anyway. There is no way to improve on such an idea, other than to scrap it. If he was describing a physical application for quantum entanglement, then we might be having a discussion, but as it stands, his idea is as flawed as they come.

ferretmaster · 14 May 2007 at 11:56

hmmmmmm

Gilly said:
Improve on a theory that uses an unknown substance to make it work, and is based on very inaccurate assumptions?

I'd rather have attenuation and my message have a chance of getting to the other side using materials that exist thanks

80 to 140km that would go far in space. A pole could go easily over million km

Amleto · 14 May 2007 at 11:56

ferretmaster said:
What about fibre optic attenution? Fibre optics would be no good over large distance. Even the pole idea is better than fibre optics. I think he is deadly serious about this idea. Maybe people should try and improve on it rather than shoot it down?

Shooting down this theory is the kindest thing available. For us.

ferretmaster · 14 May 2007 at 11:57

GordyR said:
Did you read the posts by Barbie and myself?

Regardless of the material used, the communication would not be instaneous anyway. There is no way to improve on such an idea, other than to scrap it. If he was describing a physical application for qauntum entanglement, then we might be having a discussion, but as it stands, his idea is as flawed as they come.

Is qauntum entanglement even real?

Sleepy · 14 May 2007 at 11:57

Here's a way to get an 'object' to move faster than light

Mount a powerful laser on the Earth and point it at the moon, so that there's a dot on the lunar surface. Jiggle the laser rapidly up and down. The dot will move, very rapidly across the lunar surface, jiggle the laser fast enough (a couple of m/s IIRC) and the speed of the dot will exceed c

BTW rec.arts.sf.science has a saying;

Causality, Relativity, FTL travel: chose any two

Amleto · 14 May 2007 at 11:58

GordyR said:
qauntum entanglement,

I assumed that was the OP was on about when I scanned 'instant communication' and saw the pic. But then I read the post

Beren · 14 May 2007 at 11:59

Aww, he was fun - Can we have him back again Gilly pwetty pwease?

His first post looked so Johnny69 I actually had to go back and look at it again. Genious. Pure Genious.

Ahh well back to trying to find a use for poles again I guess

Sleepy · 14 May 2007 at 11:59

ferretmaster said:
Is qauntum entanglement even real?

Yes, its been observed many times.

ferretmaster · 14 May 2007 at 12:01

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

So could it work with lasers and Base stations? Whats distance can the most powerful laser go?

Amleto · 14 May 2007 at 12:01

Beren said:
Ahh well back to trying to find a use for poles again I guess

They're good at leaving residues I think

M0KUJ1N · 14 May 2007 at 12:01

ferretmaster said:
Is qauntum entanglement even real?

It's real as in it's been observed, replicated and documented in controlled laboratory experiments.

Gilly · 14 May 2007 at 12:02

Beren said:
Genious. Pure Genious.

D'Oh!

GordyR · 14 May 2007 at 12:02

ferretmaster said:
Is qauntum entanglement even real?

Experiments have demonstrated conclusively that the predictions of quantum mechanics regarding quantum entanglement are correct.

It is about as "real" as you can get, considering that quantum mechanics is the most successful theory to date. (Successful in that it accurately predicts the outcome of the most experiments.)

Here is an article regarding one such experiment.

http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_051227.html#text

Quantum entanglement is very real.