OK i read that you cant send classical information faster than light



Soooo say in the future we have carbon-nano fibres down, or some inelastic tiny fibre.. And make it very long.. Wouldnt pulling on one end, simultaneously make the other end move?? As in, if in theory you had one a light-second long, your tug would reach the other end before a flash of light would traverse that distance.. You could communicate with morse code or something in this way ??

OK i read that you cant send classical information faster than light



Soooo say in the future we have carbon-nano fibres down, or some inelastic tiny fibre.. And make it very long.. Wouldnt pulling on one end, simultaneously make the other end move?? As in, if in theory you had one a light-second long, your tug would reach the other end before a flash of light would traverse that distance.. You could communicate with morse code or something in this way ??

The problem is that there's no inelastic substance. Sorry.

dazzlepecs:

The problem is that it takes time for the far end of the fibre to know about the tug at the near end. For the force of the tug to propagate along the fibre to the far end requires some kind of wave - like a sound wave - inside the fibre. The upshot of that is that information is actually transmitted slower than the speed of light by this method.

Yes, but what about spooky interaction at a distance where two particles are paired somehow and something done to one instantaneously affects the other regardless of distance? Surely this property could, in theory, be manipulated to provide FTL communications?

[QUOTE=dazzlepecs;1442132]

OK i read that you cant send classical information faster than light

QUOTE]

Information can travel faster than light.

Taken from the free energy (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65983&page=6)thread....

Assume a magnetic wave at the surface of a superconductor ring is
traveling at a velocity of 90% the speed of light.

The speed of light is about 300 million meters per second and 90%
of the speed of light is 270 million meters per second.
If the wave can be measured at a distance of 130% the radius of
that ring, than it is moving faster than light.

Since angular rotation is
ω = 2Π / T = 2Π f = V / r

The angular speed for all parts of the wave is the same. From the
equation above the relationship between velocity of the wave at the
base and at the top and their radii is
Vtop / (R + r) = Vbase / R
Vtop = Tangential velocity at top of wave
Vbase = Tangential velocity at base of wave
R = radius of circle at base of ring
r = radius of ring at top of wave

This means that
Vtop = Vbase x (R+r) / R
= 270 million m/s x 130 /100
= 351 million m/s
= 117% the speed of light.

Actually, no, madanthonywayne.

Useful information can only be sent using quantum entanglement by having two channels - one quantum one that relies on the "spooky action" you mentioned, and one classical one (a standard radio or cable connection, for instance). There can be a saving in the amount of classical information that needs to be transferred directly, but you can't break the light-speed limit on information transfer this way.

crazeeeeeem:

The angular speed for all parts of the wave is the same.

You need to prove that assertion.

No because molecular motion can only move so fast. Like the guy above said about sound waves.

Actually, the only proof that we have that information cannot be sent faster than the speed of light is a set of equations that formulate the hypothesis. It is circular reasoning.

Actually, the only proof that we have that information cannot be sent faster than the speed of light is a set of equations that formulate the hypothesis.

And the fact that it has never been done or observed to occur...

And the fact that it has never been done or observed to occur...

Which means nothing.

Well, I, for one, would be more convinced if somebody demonstrated it.

Well, I, for one, would be more convinced if somebody demonstrated it.

It is anywhere from difficult to impossible to demonstrate a negative. We only have enough information to demonstrate that this kind of wave in this kind of space propagates at this speed. If we can demonstrate the slowing down of light I don't see why we can't demonstrate the speeding up of light. Do the opposite of what we did to slow it down.

It is anywhere from difficult to impossible to demonstrate a negative. We only have enough information to demonstrate that this kind of wave in this kind of space propagates at this speed. If we can demonstrate the slowing down of light I don't see why we can't demonstrate the speeding up of light. Do the opposite of what we did to slow it down.

HA-HA-HA Pardon me while I catch my breath from having laughed so hard!!

The "logic" in that last statement totally floored me!!!!!!!!!:D Absolutely the best joke of the day.

HA-HA-HA Pardon me while I catch my breath from having laughed so hard!!

The "logic" in that last statement totally floored me!!!!!!!!!:D Absolutely the best joke of the day.

It's not a joke. Y'all could have figured out how to do that trick if you had been paying attention. The price for the answer to that question is a cool hundred million USD.

It's not a joke. Y'all could have figured out how to do that trick if you had been paying attention. The price for the answer to that question is a cool hundred million USD.

It's a joke to everyone but you! :D

It's not a joke. Y'all could have figured out how to do that trick if you had been paying attention. The price for the answer to that question is a cool hundred million USD.

Being a genius who is barely able to pass linear algebra, maybe I can explain. The light speed limit is exactly that. In ideal conditions light can travel at that 300 million meters/second whereas when it is slowed down via gravity and distortion something is being taken away from it.
Ok, in other words it's like saying that a car can hit 100 mph down hill (let's say 45 degrees otherwise the axle tends to break and there is no car to drive) but only 80 on level ground. You propose that by either driving up hill or dropping the car vertically (ie. destroying it to no use) it will go faster.
The limit eistein (or his friends) proposed is just that there is a limit. That is all the speed means. Enough debating this idea but trying to find how to even reach a percentage of effecient data transference.

The speed of light is simply an axiom for the rest of Quantum Physics, no? Without proposing why something can only go so fast (and what) there can be no other theories coming from absolutes (generally known as quantum theries).
But hey, correct me if I'm completely off base on this guys.

Well, fool, one of the clues is the fact that the speed of light is a constant for the prevailing curvature of space no matter what direction it is going.

Well, fool, one of the clues is the fact that the speed of light is a constant for the prevailing curvature of space no matter what direction it is going.

Does it only apply to light? What about magnetic fields travelling around a ring?

Does it only apply to light? What about magnetic fields travelling around a ring?

What kind of "ring" are you talking about? Perhaps a superconductor ring with an induced current flowing in it? Doesn't really matter though, because magnetic fields don't travel. They are static - all they can do is expand and contract - not travel.

Does it only apply to light? What about magnetic fields travelling around a ring?

You're going to have to be more explicit.

What kind of "ring" are you talking about? Perhaps a superconductor ring with an induced current flowing in it? Doesn't really matter though, because magnetic fields don't travel. They are static - all they can do is expand and contract - not travel.

Thats a load of nonsense. So what you are saying is that we cannot send signals down a wire. I guess we have been duped by all the wire manufacturers, computer engineers, telegraph systems etc etc.

How does a signal travel down a UTP cable then. Does it just appear out of nowhere, cover the whole cable, than collapse altogether?

What about telegraph signals? Does the same happen.

In fact you are saying that magnetic fields can occur faster than light for suppose you have a wire of say 2km, are you saying that the moment I send a pulse down the wire, the wire become totally magnetised all at the same time? Isn't that faster than light.

Some real discussion please and not your usual tripe.

Thats a load of nonsense. So what you are saying is that we cannot send signals down a wire. I guess we have been duped by all the wire manufacturers, computer engineers, telegraph systems etc etc.

How does a signal travel down a UTP cable then. Does it just appear out of nowhere, cover the whole cable, than collapse altogether?

What about telegraph signals? Does the same happen.

In fact you are saying that magnetic fields can occur faster than light for suppose you have a wire of say 2km, are you saying that the moment I send a pulse down the wire, the wire become totally magnetised all at the same time? Isn't that faster than light.

Some real discussion please and not your usual tripe.

Nope, the problem is that you simply do not understand the physics of electric current and energy (or information) transfer. While electric current DOES travel along a conductor - and the energy and information along with it, the FIELD does not travel.

It would help you tremendously to simply go and read about the very basic principles of electricity. Seems you skipped over quite a bit.

Nope, the problem is that you simply do not understand the physics of electric current and energy (or information) transfer. While electric current DOES travel along a conductor - and the energy and information along with it, the FIELD does not travel.

It would help you tremendously to simply go and read about the very basic principles of electricity. Seems you skipped over quite a bit.


A. You dont know who I am
B. So you are asking me to do what study in particular? Electrical engineering? Physics? errr... do it yourself first
C. As usual you write nonsense

A. You dont know who I am
B. So you are asking me to do what study in particular? Electrical engineering? Physics? errr... do it yourself first
C. As usual you write nonsense

A. I don't care who you are. But I know what you are - someone who is talking about something of which they lack sufficient knowledge to understand.

B. No, neither EE nor physics - just very simple basic electricity. That would be more than enough to show you how wrong your statements were.

C. No, I'm writing form both real knowledge and experience. YOU are the one who was writing nonsense. Magnetic fields do NOT travel along a conductor.

splitting hairs again?

splitting hairs again?

Of course not. Just dealing in facts. What's your excuse for not doing so?

If space expanded faster then lightspeed, then space expansion energy would've been faster then the light.

If space expanded faster then lightspeed, then space expansion energy would've been faster then the light.

I see... No good answer so you change the subject. Figures.

If you manage to release space expansion energy in big enough amount, in the form of a signal, it might be read by someone really far away.

If you manage to release space expansion energy in big enough amount, in the form of a signal, it might be read by someone really far away.

Bull !! Besides, no one even has any idea what the "space expansion energy" even is. Much less how to release it !

And what does any of that nonsense have to do with your claim that a magnetic field travels along a conductor? Have you recanted that position?

That wasn't me bro.

That wasn't me bro.

Oops - you're right!! Very sorry, my apologies!

Well, if the space expansion energy is difficult to release, how do you figure the universe came to expand this much?

PS. No worries.