The Butterfly Effect

[zanzibar]

If you started off existence as going faster than light, then you wouldn't be breaking any laws.  But you'd be travelling backwards in time from the moment of creation, so you would never interact with normal matter.

Black holes do emmitt radiation.  What happens is that quantum events near the event horizon are affected in such a way that one particle gets sucked in and the other particle flies off into space.  Magnetic fields would be a bit more tricky, but that just means out theories are incomplete and not necessarily incorrect.

[miLosh]

If you started off existence as going faster than light, then you wouldn't be breaking any laws.  But you'd be travelling backwards in time from the moment of creation, so you would never interact with normal matter.

that's the description of a tachyon if im not mistaking. again, its a mathematical construct which lacks necessity and physical prove. no one has ever saw a tachyon. the problem with that theory is, there are too many "if"s. just think about what your sentence mean, to "start of existence going faster than light". velocity is not just there, it is the effect of applying (moving)energy into mass. so again we have the typcial cause-effect-dilemma. the tachyon has to exist so energy can be applied to it, but it cannot exist without being faster than light - you see the flaw?

[zanzibar]

Who says that everything started off at rest?  That seems like an assumption.



I'm not saying that tachyon particles exist.  I'm just giving a description of what they might be like if they did exist.  I think that having ifs and iffs is just fine as long as they're used in a way that makes sense.

[miLosh]

Who says that everything started off at rest?  That seems like an assumption.

basic law of thermodynamics? logic? as i said, how can you apply energy to something that doesnt exist? it simply doesnt make sense. however, a lot of things dont make sense and even thermodynamics might be wrong. im certainly not an expert to be able to prove that they are right.

but i am almost certain that there will never be a human that will "come" into existence with a velocity > C. or any velocity at all for that matter, as you "assumed" in the previous post (If YOU started off...)

[EDIT] another example why tachyons are just a mathematical construct that cannot exist in reallife is pythagoras famous theorem a^2+b^2=c^2. if you calculate it back, you can get a positiv or a negativ value, but we only experience triangles with a positiv hypotenuse. the square root for the number "9" nine can be 3, or -3, because of (-3)*(-3) = 9. the same is true for the tachyons. the special relativity theory allows them to be calculated, but in the same way that we cannot have a triangle with a negative side, tachyons can not exist. hope i could clarify my point and didnt cause more confusion cause of the mathematics
 

[zanzibar]

We already know the laws of thermodynamics to be false though.  Logic is just conclusions from postulates - with the right axioms, you can logically deduce anything.  And common sense isn't worth a whole lot.  And it's not a matter of applying energy to something that doesn't exist, it's a matter of something coming into existence with energy.  And I understood your part about triangles perfectly well, I'm not sure why you chose to adopt such a snarky tone.

[miLosh]

And I understood your part about triangles perfectly well, I'm not sure why you chose to adopt such a snarky tone.

uhm sorry that wasnt meant as an insult or something, nor did i wanted to look uber-smart. i just thought that maybe not all who read my post do know what i am talking about. or do you asume that you're the only one reading it? dont need to answer that

keep cool man, it's just nerd-talk.

[miLosh]

We already know the laws of thermodynamics to be false though. 

ah do we? im sure you can post a link.

Logic is just conclusions from postulates - with the right axioms, you can logically deduce anything. 

probably, in theory.

And common sense isn't worth a whole lot. 

well i dont know about you but i like to think of myself that i am able to see the interaction of cause and effect. but then, maybe thats the reason why i've not become a billionair already, because my common sense says that i have to work for it - but im sure there is an axiom who tells me that i dont, i'd be happy to share my money with you if you could tell it to me.

sorry, you see my point. science is all about common sense. everything else is mathematical playground.

And it's not a matter of applying energy to something that doesn't exist, it's a matter of something coming into existence with energy.

well that only is the half-truth. to have a particle on a certain velocity, energy must be _applied_ to it in a given direction, so the particle can move in that direction. velocity is not something that stays in place, its the effect we see when a certain amout of energy is applied to something in a certain direction. as with tachyons, its getting even more tricky, for the more energy they get, the "slower" they are (meaning closer to LS). so you need to have a particle that when it comes into existence already had moving energy removed, 'cause otherwise you'd need infinit energy to have it LS. imagine what a nice world we would live in

anyway, i think the triangle example shows what tachyons are. mathematical constructs with _zero_ relevancy for our life. zero. they are only relevant in SRT calculations to show that the theory works both ways.

[Suno_Regin]

The Butterfly Effect 2? I loved the first one. When's it coming out?

[zanzibar]

We already know the laws of thermodynamics to be false though. 

ah do we? im sure you can post a link.

The laws of thermodynamics don't account for quantum events rising from the uncertainty principle.  It's laws about energy are not truly laws.

My description of logic is accurate.  You can arrive at any conclusion given the right set of postulates.

[Datruth]

My description of logic is accurate.  You can arrive at any conclusion given the right set of postulates.

* Datruth Holds a book in his hands.

I deduce that the book is larger than the sum of it's parts, the pages.

I would like you to logically disproove that.


I'm sorry zanzibar but you are way off this time, without logic, without wisdom, we can understand nothing.

~~Datruth

[zanzibar]

My description of logic is accurate.  You can arrive at any conclusion given the right set of postulates.

* Datruth Holds a book in his hands.

I deduce that the book is larger than the sum of it's parts, the pages.

I would like you to logically disproove that.


I'm sorry zanzibar but you are way off this time, without logic, without wisdom, we can understand nothing.

~~Datruth

I'm not off at all.  Here is an example of the logical operation deduction:

(P1) If unicorns are blue, then the sky is green.
(P2) Unicorns are blue.
(C) Therefore, the sky is green.


Given the right postulates, you can logically conclude anything.  The system is logical, even if the postulates are suspect.

[Datruth]

How is that logical in any way?

Obviously if you start off with bad givens your operation is always wrong.

[Xordan]

so lets continue to the speed of light topic. as stated by the theory, nothing with mass can exceed that speed. but that does not mean that C is the fasted speed in the universe. a practical experiment with lasers and xeon gas (IIRC) showed speeds around 300 times C. and there are the quantum physics who observ twin-particles that clearly interact with each other in no-time - literally. if you change a property of one particle, it is immediatly changed on the other without any delay. this passing of information from one particle to the other is considered to be faster-than-light. that does not prove that we could theoretically travel faster than light, because we consist of mass and information does not, but it states that C is not the highest velocity we experience.

That's not correct (I'm a bit slow catching up to this topic xD).  Your first point was right, it's been shown that beams can travel faster than light... but there you go wrong a bit. Those beams don't carry any information. Information _can't_ travel faster than light as far as any observations and most known and likely theories suggest (such as special relativity). The beams just carry the 'pathway'. Kind of like saying that a road is being laid at 300C, and the cars would move along it. Twin-particles, or quantum-entangled particles don't pass information faster than light, even though anything that happens to one (like change of spin) happens to the other instantaneously (unless relativity is wrong). Assuming relativity is correct, then they would (again theoretically) be able to pass information via retrocasuality, because relativity sees the time dimension as a block which is static and unchanging, so the future is the same as the past. Basically, this means that measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backwards through time to the moment that the pair were created and change the measurements to be the same for the other. It's quite a nice clean solution, but probably too perfect.
 

[zanzibar]

How is that logical in any way?

Obviously if you start off with bad givens your operation is always wrong.

No, the operation itself is correct.  Logic is just arriving at a conclusion from a set of prepositions via a certain set of processes, including deduction.

[Datruth]

How is that logical in any way?

Obviously if you start off with bad givens your operation is always wrong.

No, the operation itself is correct.  Logic is just arriving at a conclusion from a set of prepositions via a certain set of processes, including deduction.

Why wouldn't you show the corralation  between the two.

I can say, genius's have nick names that are Zanzibar.

Therefore if my nickname is Zanzibar, i am a genius.

You still have to SHOW a corralation between the two.

Logic itself overrides your Unicorn example because,

A) Unicorns do not exist

B) Most unicorns are shown to be white in fictional stories

C) We have millions of people who attest that the sky is blue

D) There is no corralation between the color of a unicorn and the color of the sky.


~~Datruth