Alright so I recently eared that in SOME instances DARKNESS can go faster than light.
1)Is it true?
2)In wich instances
3)Can we use this knowledge for something usefull or do I just need to shove it up my ass?
No, but there are some instances where the speed of heavy is faster than the speed of light. Such as when going downhill.
If by darkness you mean empty space then yes empty space expands faster than the speed of light.
>>7665040
why thank you kind sir
Shadows can move faster than light, and no this isn't useful for FTL communication since it's not an instance of Alice sending a message to Bob FTL, but rather Carl sending a message to both that is received by Bob faster than Alice could relay it to him at lightspeed.
>>7665064
#2 No that's because our eyes are terrible for viewing the night sk.
>>7665070
How so?
Is it just cuz or is there explanation?
>>7665033
Relativity does not say *nothing* can move faster than light it says no objects or information can.
Shadows cannot be used to transmit data FTL, they do not violate relativity.
>>7665033
Anything which doesn't transmit information can move faster than light, since it's only speed of transmit of information that is bound by the [math]c[/math] limit.
there's no such thing as the "speed of light". it should really be fucking called the "speed of space".
anyone here who still isn't convinced we live in a simulation needs to edumacate dem selves
yes darkness can go faster than light.
put some darkness at the end of a really long pole. then move the pole. the darkness at the end will move faster than the speed of light.
/thread
FTL is a bit of a dogma and blindly assumed in all instances, despite lack of evidence. One such case is the assumption that gravity is a force and it propagates at the speed of light. Yet we have undeniable experimental evidence of quantum effects which propagate instantly through any space and time.
I think once physics removes this particular stick from its ass, it might start moving ahead.
I remember reading that there isn't actually a speed limit of 299 792 458 m / s, but rather 299 792 458 m / s is simply the highest speed that anything in existence can currently travel at, which is light.
Usain Bolt analogous to Light
Usain bolt = 12.27 m / s
Light = 299 792 458 m / s
Just because there is currently no known human who can run faster than Usain Bolt, that does not mean that 12.27 m / s is a law / speed limit and that no human will ever be able to run faster than him. The same goes for light. Light is simply the fastest known thing in the universe and nothing can go faster than it because there is currently nothing in the universe that can travel faster than it. Is this true?
>>7665520
What the hell is saying "nah, we can go faster than light" gonna do without the math to back it up. It's meaningless. The only thing moving anywhere close to the speed of light is light and it's not like we have these great devices planned that would work if only if only the speed of light in a vacuum weren't constant
It's not a dogma, it's a consequence. If you want to revolutionize science it's going to take more than simply ignoring one particular result of the current model.
>>7665540
There you go with the kneejerk dogma, totally dismissing the undeniable findings of QM which is entirely backed by the maths. There is far more to the true nature of reality than can be explained by the increasingly coarse and broken GR.
>>7665082
>Is it just cuz or is there explanation?
Google "Olber's Paradox"
Basically, we can only see light from Alpha Centauri that was emitted 4.4 years ago, light from Tau Ceti theat was emitted 11.9 years ago, and since the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, it's tempting to say we can only see light from stars about 13.8 billion light-years away, but those stars have gotten even farther away because of the expansion of the universe, so the edge of the visible universe is just over 46 billion light years away.
But the whole "space expands faster than c" is a cheat because we add up space's expansion speed in a different way than relativity usually adds velocities (galilean transform vs lorentz transformation).
If any of this is a little off, don't call me a fucking retard.
I'm a 50-year-old high school grad that's been drinking homemade mead all night.
>>7665569
p.s.
The whole "the light we see from stars is so old the stars we see are long dead" thing is bullshit.
The most distant stars we can see are only a few hundred light years distant.
A few thousand at most.
OK, the core of the milky way is about 30k ly out, but that's still not "long dead stars".
>>7665577
checked
>>7665553
I asuume you're talking about quantum tunneling and entanglement?
Yes its true that these things may be FTL in some way but that doesn't necessarily mean they violate relativity, they have to be useable to transmit data or move objects FTL in order to do that and right now that doesn't seem to be the case. The no communication theorem deals with this.
Also worth noting that interpretations of quantum phenomena are still pretty up in the air but its certainly not looking good for local hidden variables so you've got that going for you.
>>7665569
>If any of this is a little off, don't call me a fucking retard.
>I'm a 50-year-old high school grad that's been drinking homemade mead all night.
>50-year-old high school grad that's been drinking homemade mead all night.
>50-year-old... homemade mead
Based anon
I was looking at getting a still, any suggestive for drinks? Some homemade rums I've tried have been pretty good and I'm not usually keen on rum.
>>7665657
>Yes its true that these things may be FTL in some way but that doesn't necessarily mean they violate relativity,
He's overlooking the fact that relativity doesn't directly ban FTL.
Relativity by itself is fine with FTL, it just means there's a frame of reference where you arrive at your destination before you leave your starting point, thus violating CAUSALITY, not relativity.
We can assume FTL without breaking GR if we abandon causality.
Sure, it sounds unlikely, but anybody read "The Forever War"?
It's a novel about an allegedly realistic take on space travel and space war based on GR.
What I'd like o see is the same but based on FTL that violates causality.
>>7665672
>I was looking at getting a still, any suggestive for drinks?
You don't really need a still, they're rather illegal and a little prone to explode.
(steam explosion, not fireball of death)
I make mead by mixing one part honey with three parts water (or better yet, apple juice), then adding a wine yeast.
Mix up a few gallons and let it sit about 2-3 weeks.
For store-bought liquor, I like silver tequila, but lately I've been mixing rum (Krakken) with a touch of butterscotch schnapps.
>>7665687
Yea that's true I shouldn't have said violate relativity, its causality that's the issue.
Although if tunneling/entanglement really is FTL then depending on how its done it may violate special relativity. General relativity allows for FTL through the manipulation of space but if these particles aren't manipulating space then apparently they're getting infinite energy somewhere.
All of that aside though even if entanglement/tunneling really is "spooky action at a distance", however its done, its still doesn't necessarily violate relativity or causality because "spooky action at a distance" != "spooky communication at a distance". See no communication theorem. That's the point I was trying to make.
>>7665687
Causality is an illusion as shown by QM.
>>7665705
I'm the poster you originally responded to. My point is that there is a whole different perspective than relativity when looking at QM which doesn't violate what relativity explains, as it operates on an entirely different principle. QM shows that there is far more going on than what relativity explains, just as GR takes a whole new level on classical mechanics. Before GR there was an immutable universal clock and physics was "done".
So my point is that just because the limited theory of GR says something doesn't make it an immutable fact, especially considering that the even more accurate theory of QM has several observed effects which break causality and therefore are operating outside of FTL limitations.
>>7665576
Yes.
>>7665725
Just don't be so quick to assume QM is all decided. Like I said interpretations are still up in the air. These same phenoma which you say "break causality and operate outside the FTL limit" can also be observed not to do that depending on what particular version of QM you subscribe to.
You are correct though that tunneling and entanglement may involve some sort of FTL. Its certainly a possibility and it is possible we'll make a big discovery some day and prove relativity "wrong" in a big way. We're not there yet though. Relativity has lots of experimental evidence on its side too.
>>7665712
Even if causality and classical mechanics are just the result of statistical effects that doesn't make them illusions.
>>7665748
Well when QM was first discussed, Einstein was all about "wait a sec" and here we are a century later, people saying "wait a sec". There is no "version" of QM other than that which is experimentally proven and effects like entanglement have been observed in action. Entanglement IS instant communication of information which is whey Einstein got so rustled by it.
Causality is an illusion as a statistical outcome is not the deterministic outcome that causality implies. At the quantum level, you cannot make any claim to determinism, only an estimate which may be way off.
On the subject, there seems to be a kind of cognitive dissonance about QM where many cannot extrapolate what has been accurately theorized and observed into the real world around them. Quantum effects have been directly observed in subatomic particles, and atoms behave the same way, as do molecules. All confirmed. Last I checked everything around us was also made from the same atoms, so it is an extraordinary claim that QM cannot scale to our level.
>>7665754
Do you have an example of a macroscopic causality violation? Guess its not scaling. Your right its weird as fuck though I mean I think about that allot and its still an active area of research.
And entanglement isn't necessarily FTL communication, and no I'm not invoking any hidden variables here. Have you read the no communication theorem? Entanglement may involve the FTL transmission of random data but that doesn't mean we can use it to send FTL messages, current evidence says we can't and some interpretations of QM say we never will.
Einstein hasn't been BTFO, not yet at least.
>>7665033
OP let me tell you a joke that can maybe clarify the subject:
>Mr.Cletus was at a scientific conference
>The female speecher was talking about speed saying
>"There's no thing faster in the universe than light"
>Someone at the crowd raised its hands and said
>"I think that the fastest thing in the universe is the thought"
>Mr.Cletus, with all its wiseness raised his hands and said
>"Ma'am, you both don't know nothing, the fastest thing in the universe is diarrhea"
>"diarrhea?" the lady asked
>"Yes" Cletus replied " before I think of turning on the lights I already shited allover myself"
>>7665766
Can you prove that it doesn't scale and that there's some demarcation between a group of molecules and a single molecule? We may be seeing these effects on a daily basis and just dismiss them as innacuracies or even delusions, because it is not mainstream to even consider the idea despite the evidence implying otherwise.
>>7665766
Sure is "can't", "never" and other dogma around here. If science has shown us anything, those words make a tasty snack.
>>7665772
i laughed out loud
>>7665801
>prove that it doesn't
Never a good argument. Also I'm not saying that it doesn't for sure, maybe it does, I'm just saying I have yet to see convincing evidence of that but I'm totally open to the idea that's out there and should the day come that we see that evidence I will believe it, but not before then.
>>7665808
Then how do you propose we use quantum entanglement for FTL communication?
>>7665846
You sure are closed-minded. The bad argument is claiming that an observed effect with an agreeing theory somehow stops at a certain scale, in spite of the otherwise bulletproof model saying that there is no such limit.
>Then how do you propose we use quantum entanglement for FTL communication?
Keep moving the goalposts you faggot cunt, I'll kill you.
>>7665860
I'm not insisting its impossible I don't know what your getting so upset about.
>>7665898
Fuck off dickhead.
>>7665700
Cheers man. Imma try that. I tried something similar years ago but didn't give it the fermenting time. Bad idea lol.
>>7665913
Kek god damn what did I say even? I'm totally open to the idea that you're right man I thought I made that clear.
>>7665577
very nice, learned something different today, that a star 30.000 lightyears, only has an lightdelay of 30.000 years which is nothing for a planet, therefore most distans planets are "up to date~"
>>7665033
Good explanation here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvcpdfGUtQ
