Hyperspace

[Godot]

It seems the number 0 is surprising...

The ring structure of Benzene was discovered by August Kekulé, after he dreamed of a snake biting into its own tail.

So, if we include "crazy dreams" as a subset of "crazy ideas" the number is > 0

[Xannari Ferrows]

Yeah, the number of deaths by 0 each year is astonishing!

Exactly! It's practically infinite.

[ZetaX]

Exactly! It's practically infinite.

Indeed, this is consistent with the observation that size is inversely proportional to lethality (as seen e.g. in by: being hit by the moon, hit by a plane, hit by a bike, hit by a bacterial infection, hit by a virus infection).

The ring structure of Benzene was discovered by August Kekulé, after he dreamed of a snake biting into its own tail.

So, if we include "crazy dreams" as a subset of "crazy ideas" the number is > 0

This is not known to be factual. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Anyway, the concept of ouroborus was not new then. He probably saw a ring (maybe that one) and concluded that it matches the observations well (and there were indeed many observations available).

No, science generally works by stuff being researched, not by crazy things being done. There may be a few exceptions, but those are completely irrelevant in comparision to "normal" research.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Indeed, this is consistent with the observation that size is inversely proportional to lethality (as seen e.g. in by: being hit by the moon, hit by a plane, hit by a bike, hit by a bacterial infection, hit by a virus infection).

That wasn't what I was basing it off of. Deaths are infinitely more than 0, to put it in a cheaty manor.

[sndrtj]

Wait, if a probe was moving the speed of light, could it send back telemetry at the speed of light? It would have to be moving 2C to communicate, unless you theorize using only Newtonian physics.

If I understand relatively correctly, it would still be able to, since the speed of C is fixed regardless of reference frame. Never mind the fact that one cannot send a probe at light speed. It will always be slower than C. Only in the case of superluminal speeds, communication becomes impossible. But that argument is mute anyway (since can't reach C).

[Aethon]

There is a no-communication theorem on entanglement that basically says you can't do that. In fact, entanglement cannot be used for communication, period. It can only be used to augment an existing communication channel. (See: Quantum Teleportation.)

^^

Even if it was somehow possible, you still have to get the other entangled photon out to the place you want to communicate with, which can only be done at the speed of light or slower.

[PB666]

What the hell's a quantum radio?

The latest reading I have read is that quantum entanglement doesn't work like a subspace communicator in Sci-fi.

An atom generates a pair of photons, they wander out into space and at some point i cipher what one photos state is, and thus I know the state of the other photon.

Photons as it turns out do not age, when a photo left a star at the beginning of the universe and we view it the star that generated the photon died millions of years ago to us, but from the photons perspective it left and arrived in less than Planck's time. Since from the photon's point of view no time has passed then the generation of the photon and the two observations occurred simultaneously.

However, I cannot change the polarity of a photon, I can exclude photon's of a given polarity, therefore If I read a photon of a given polarity, I know what the other observer will read if he also does not exclude it, but If i exclude it and the other observer reads it I can't know what he read. Suppose he is just reading polarities, and he reads the polarity first, then I filter the polarity, if it could be used to communicate faster than light he would be reading the message before I sent it, not possible. The reciever of the message does not know when to read, so how would he know if he was reading before or after I had filtered the photon.

The rest of his stuff is bunk.

[WinkAllKerb'']

be reading the message before I sent it, not possible.

it is conceptualy: sub/consciousness .. it's not that you not sent the message, it's that you not realised yourself you sent it "another way" before ... a way "lambda" is unable to read but "beta" can ... kinda like that ... simple ... then add as much letter and variable in this comm process chain and youpi tralalala "welcome to the science labs" ; )

Edited July 20, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[KSK]

Welcome to The Science Labs!

Gentlemen, these are the Science Labs. You can't do science in here.

[YNM]

For the original OP question I'll add to please note about time rate, which horribly differs when you're going near blackhole / wormhole, or going really fast. I don't know whether entanglement would work in such case. Also, if you want to decipher photons you're just making it gone, as most likely you're going to absorp it to some detector.

[Guest]

I hate to say it but it certainly doesn't have much grounding in actual science.

I'm trying to get some, but it seems non existant.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there anything PREDICTED that can go faster than light? Our eyes only detect incoming photons, and photons can only go at c. Because we can't observe stuff going faster than c because the photons can't get to our eyes fast enough, we assume that nothing can go faster.

- - - Updated - - -

OOPS. If the probe going at c messed it all up, it goes just below c.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you use quantum mechanics to communicate? It might not use entanglement.

[NFUN]

I'm trying to get some, but it seems non existant.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there anything PREDICTED that can go faster than light? Our eyes only detect incoming photons, and photons can only go at c. Because we can't observe stuff going faster than c because the photons can't get to our eyes fast enough, we assume that nothing can go faster.

- - - Updated - - -

OOPS. If the probe going at c messed it all up, it goes just below c.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you use quantum mechanics to communicate? It might not use entanglement.

What does that even mean?

[Windspren]

It's called special relativity.

- - - Updated - - -

And if physicists were using their eyes alone to study quantum physics, I'd be worried.

[UmbralRaptor]

Is there anything PREDICTED that can go faster than light?

Effectively no. As K^2 mentioned, Tachyons are allowed by relativity, but not the standard model.

How do you use quantum mechanics to communicate? It might not use entanglement.

Lasers exploit a quantum mechanical process and are useful for communication. But that's still limited by c.

[Windspren]

So basically I understand your theory as this: Make a black hole, send in a probe, and see if there's atoms inside, which would mean it is "hyperspace"??? Unless you mean test if it is a wormhole. But that doesn't make any sense either because wormholes would actually need negative gravity to exist without collapsing. Black holes are just supermassive objects that light cannot escape. Nothing special about them, except for Hawking radiation and the singularity at its center.

Also, I would not want to travel into a black hole, for reasons, like the fact that getting ripped apart atom by atom does not seem very appealing.

[Megadeath]

As I understand, gravity and gravitational shear makes it all moot anyway: it's impossible to build a mechanism that could pass through an event horizon; if you could, it couldn't get a message back; and if it did, it would come through fundamentally scrambled and indecipherable.

I read an article, that mostly made a whizzing sound flying over my head. It talked about an event horizon as a permanent barrier to information, that we can't infer anything about what went into a black hole from observation of it. I think the article was saying this sorta supported hawking radiation as it doesn't encode any information. Can anyone explain what I actually read, and what it meant?

[Godot]

Sure, Hawking Radiation is created when in vacuum a particle and antiparticle pair gets created and, instead of immediately colliding with each other and canceling themselves out (which normally happens) trhe antiparticle gets across the event horizon (and therefore is lost into the black hole). The remaining particle continues on its path and it appears as if the particle is emitted from the BH.

IIRC it also causes the BH to lose mass (due to the antiparticle entering the BH) and may cause small BHs (with a large surface) to actually shrink over time.

It, naturally, also means that no information is conveyed about the black hole ... as the particle isn´t excactly emitted by the black hole.

[ZetaX]

Sure, Hawking Radiation is created when in vacuum a particle and antiparticle pair gets created and, instead of immediately colliding with each other and canceling themselves out (which normally happens) trhe antiparticle gets across the event horizon (and therefore is lost into the black hole).

Or the particle gets across the horizon (as anti- is self-dual, this would normally make no difference, but your next sentences suggest you very specifically mean antimatter).

IIRC it also causes the BH to lose mass (due to the antiparticle entering the BH) and may cause small BHs (with a large surface) to actually shrink over time.

An antiparticle has positive mass. The mass is lost in creating both particles, while only absorbing one.

[Guest]

People, please, we are only trying to find two answers: whether quantum mechanics can be used for communication, and whether black holes can be used as wormholes . If I say "black hole" just assume it has antigravity.

[K^2]

People, please, we are only trying to find two answers: whether quantum mechanics can be used for communication, and whether black holes can be used as wormholes . If I say "black hole" just assume it has antigravity.

And both of these are answered. No and no. There is no ambiguity here.

And what do black holes have to do with anti-gravity? What the hell is "anti-gravity" is even supposed to mean? Outside of science fiction techno-babble it is a meaningless term.

[KSK]

People, please, we are only trying to find two answers: whether quantum mechanics can be used for communication, and whether black holes can be used as wormholes . If I say "black hole" just assume it has antigravity.

Yes, although probably not in the way you mean and, to the best of my knowledge, no.

Quantum mechanics isn't physics breaking magic, it's a mathematical framework that lets us understand (or at least calculate) how matter behaves at an atomic and sub-atomic level. As somebody has already pointed out on this thread, lasers can only be explained using quantum mechanics and lasers are used in communication. Quantum key distribution for secure communications has been demonstrated and very much uses quantum mechanics. Therefore, yes, quantum mechanics can be used for communication. Facetiously, all chemistry is ultimately based on quantum mechanics, so lighting a fire to send smoke signals could be regarded as using quantum mechanics for communication.

If we're talking about faster than light communication or instant communication at a distance, then quantum mechanics won't help you there.

I don't pretend to understand any of the details but it seems that the Kerr metric predicts various features of black holes that would theoretically allow them to act as wormholes. However, that Wikipedia article also notes that such black holes are thought to be unstable, preventing this in practice. The article is also sprinkled with 'dubious - discuss' comments and the section on Kerr black holes as wormholes is prominently labelled as needing more citations for verification. Therefore, I would say that this is edge-of-physics speculation rather than accepted theory at this point.

Even if black holes could be used as wormholes, there is a vast difference between 'might be possible in theory' and 'technologically feasible at any level'.

Edited July 20, 2015 by KSK

[ZetaX]

Even if black holes could be used as wormholes, there is a vast difference between 'might be possible in theory' and 'technologically feasible at any level'.

Even worse: assuming black holes can work as wormholes, then it might happen that they only connect in a pre-set way, including us being unable to create new such wormholes. This would make them much less useful to wat people think about when saying "wormhole".

[PB666]

Sure, Hawking Radiation is created when in vacuum a particle and antiparticle pair gets created and, instead of immediately colliding with each other and canceling themselves out (which normally happens) trhe antiparticle gets across the event horizon (and therefore is lost into the black hole). The remaining particle continues on its path and it appears as if the particle is emitted from the BH.

IIRC it also causes the BH to lose mass (due to the antiparticle entering the BH) and may cause small BHs (with a large surface) to actually shrink over time.

It, naturally, also means that no information is conveyed about the black hole ... as the particle isn´t excactly emitted by the black hole.

Blacks holes generate X-rays because matter enters in vortexes that are swirling in as the matter moves toward us at nearly the speed of light the frequency of emmitted radiation doppler shifts upward; and it is far enough from the event horizon to escape. Thus there is all sorts of phenomena going on outside the hole to increase the opacity of what is going on inside. But the signal is primarily weakened by the energy density of the hole itself.

- - - Updated - - -

And both of these are answered. No and no. There is no ambiguity here.

And what do black holes have to do with anti-gravity? What the hell is "anti-gravity" is even supposed to mean? Outside of science fiction techno-babble it is a meaningless term.

It would imply a negative energy density in space. IIRC you guys were talking about using negative energy density as part of a warp field which I protested could not happen and could not be done.

[Godot]

Blacks holes generate X-rays because matter enters in vortexes that are swirling in as the matter moves toward us at nearly the speed of light the frequency of emmitted radiation doppler shifts upward; and it is far enough from the event horizon to escape. Thus there is all sorts of phenomena going on outside the hole to increase the opacity of what is going on inside. But the signal is primarily weakened by the energy density of the hole itself.

....

But that´s not the Hawking radiation, Megadeath mentioned.

Hawking Radiation is created the way, ZetaX and myself referred to

(i.e. pairwise creation of Particles and Antiparticles in a vacuum of which one gets swallowed by the BH and the other one misses the event horizon)

[PB666]

But that´s not the Hawking radiation, Megadeath mentioned.

Hawking Radiation is created the way, ZetaX and myself referred to

(i.e. pairwise creation of Particles and Antiparticles in a vacuum of which one gets swallowed by the BH and the other one misses the event horizon)

I didn't say it wasn't, I am saying there are many forms of radiation that interfere with observations of black holes, and provide additional reasons for humans to never try and go into one.

Why is this thread still active, there is no basis in reality for its inspiration. We are simply arguing with each other about the multifold ways in which the fantastic proposition would not work.

I think the first reply in the thread should be like this:

No FTL communication (violates time constraints)

No FTL speed (theoretically possible because you can create negative energy field requires FTL communication or travel and unproven Tacheons)

Ergo no space warping for sake of travel (other than the use of perigee for gravity assists)

No way to connect distant black holes. Travel though a worm hole is only theoretically possible if the wormhole pair originates from the same point in space. Therefore they could never be used to travel to an undiscovered point in space unless someone else has created the worm hole. And the energy density required to create a wormhole capable of human travel would be so great that no equipment to keep it open or human could survive the journey.

Ergo no way to create wormholes

No time travel (as in backwards for a given local)

No transporter beams, and I believe that reconstitution of biological organics would require the removal of quantum mechanics.

Therefore we can remove Star Trek, SG1, Dr. Who, Lost In Space, Battlestar galactic, Star Wars, and the overwhelming majority of space sci-fi from consideration.

Edited July 20, 2015 by PB666