Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:Physics textbooks have this:

//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communication and travel refer to the propagation of information or matterfaster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).

...

In the context of this article, FTL is the transmission of information or matter faster than c, a constant equal to the speed of light in a vacuum, which is 299,792,458 m/s (by definition) or about 186,282.4 miles per second. This is not quite the same as traveling faster than light, since:

Some processes propagate faster than c, but cannot carry information (see examples in the sections immediately following).
Light travels at speed c/n when not in a vacuum but travelling through a medium with refractive index = n (causing refraction), and in some materials other particles can travel faster than c/n (but still slower than c), leading to Cherenkov radiation (see phase velocity below).
Neither of these phenomena violates special relativity or creates problems with causality, and thus neither qualifies as FTL as described here.

...

Quantum teleportation transmits quantum information at whatever speed is used to transmit the same amount of classical information, likely the speed of light. This quantum information may theoretically be used in ways that classical information can not, such as in quantum computations involving quantum information only available to the recipient.

And so it is with the experiment you gave link to. Bob does not have that quantum information (which is photon polarization) until Alice sends him necessary classic information (probably in what direction to measure the Bob's photon polarization). Only after receiving additional classic information can Bob extract quantum information.

No causality is violated here.

And, none of Einstein's theory bites the dust. His general relativity is extensively used. To calculate the motion of planets (Newton's theory is insufficient for stronger gravitational fields and greater speeds.) To precisely calculate GPS coordinates. (Time rate is effected by gravitational field - //physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm) Astronomers would be also lost without it. (Light bends due to gravitational field.)

To the Einstein's cosmological constant:

When he formulated the general relativity theory and constructed his equation based on few principles, he was allowed to add the constant into the equation as it did not violate the principles. Yes, his aim was to achieve steady universe. But Hubble later showed that universe is expanding so physicists put the constant to zero value. Nowadays this cosmological constant is reintroduced since we know that universe is expanding at the accelerating late.

---

Off to Christmas with my family, so my replies may be delayed.

Thomas Edison once said, I have invented 2,000 ways not to make the electric light, but then Edison said, let there be light, and the night was turned into day. Clearly, it is an understatement to say that there is much to learn with these new quantum ideas, as even the idea is not fully formed, thus there are no questions answered by any test, just the formation of more questions. However something is happening here, that is different from anything that has ever been known, and this is the quest of all questers, to know. How does an image form, in the shape of another image, if the two images never saw each other, and thus could in theory have been on other worlds? //news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140827-quantum-imaging-cats-undetected-photon-science/ We have to ask how?

Indeed, quantum nonlocality is a fascinating stuff.

And to fascinate you even more, have some read on delayed choice experiments.

1over137 wrote:Physics textbooks have this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communication and travel refer to the propagation of information or matterfaster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).

...

In the context of this article, FTL is the transmission of information or matter faster than c, a constant equal to the speed of light in a vacuum, which is 299,792,458 m/s (by definition) or about 186,282.4 miles per second. This is not quite the same as traveling faster than light, since:

Some processes propagate faster than c, but cannot carry information (see examples in the sections immediately following).
Light travels at speed c/n when not in a vacuum but travelling through a medium with refractive index = n (causing refraction), and in some materials other particles can travel faster than c/n (but still slower than c), leading to Cherenkov radiation (see phase velocity below).
Neither of these phenomena violates special relativity or creates problems with causality, and thus neither qualifies as FTL as described here.

...

Quantum teleportation transmits quantum information at whatever speed is used to transmit the same amount of classical information, likely the speed of light. This quantum information may theoretically be used in ways that classical information can not, such as in quantum computations involving quantum information only available to the recipient.

And so it is with the experiment you gave link to. Bob does not have that quantum information (which is photon polarization) until Alice sends him necessary classic information (probably in what direction to measure the Bob's photon polarization). Only after receiving additional classic information can Bob extract quantum information.

No causality is violated here.

And, none of Einstein's theory bites the dust. His general relativity is extensively used. To calculate the motion of planets (Newton's theory is insufficient for stronger gravitational fields and greater speeds.) To precisely calculate GPS coordinates. (Time rate is effected by gravitational field - http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm) Astronomers would be also lost without it. (Light bends due to gravitational field.)

To the Einstein's cosmological constant:

When he formulated the general relativity theory and constructed his equation based on few principles, he was allowed to add the constant into the equation as it did not violate the principles. Yes, his aim was to achieve steady universe. But Hubble later showed that universe is expanding so physicists put the constant to zero value. Nowadays this cosmological constant is reintroduced since we know that universe is expanding at the accelerating late.

---

Off to Christmas with my family, so my replies may be delayed.

Well as for relativity, Einstein, included the static, not expanding universe in relativity, and only took it out after Hubble, proved Einstein wrong. So relativity, has already been wrong once, it could very easily be wrong again. The thing that bugs me a little about Einstein, is that he never did a single experiment, Hubble studied the stars, as these people are studying quantum behavior, and testing it as they see fit.
As for quantum behavior, I just do not think that it is logical, to be too hasty yet, as 99.999 percent of all knowledge is still unknown, and interesting enough, this is the same percent of unknown knowledge as 5 10 or 20 thousand years ago, as we live on a speck of sand, as the Earth is compared to the entire known universe.

In a recent experiment, the quantum state (the direction it was spinning) of a light particle {{{"""""instantly"""""}}} traveled 15.5 miles (25 kilometers) across an optical fiber, becoming the farthest successful quantum teleportation feat yet. Advances in quantum teleportation could lead to better Internet and communication security, and get scientists closer to developing quantum computers.

About five years ago, researchers could only teleport quantum information, such as which direction a particle is spinning, across a few meters. Now, they can beam that information across several miles.

Note the word instantly, which is faster than light, which if confirmed undermines the light speed max. The question is why, and the following image, most certainly contains information. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3197815/posts

The history was like this: Einstein wrote down his general relativity equation. Then he tried to apply it to cosmology. Since that time observations did not show universe was expanding he added the cosmological constant into his equation in such a way not to spoil the principles he based his equation on.

And Einstein deserves lot of credit for his works. One Nobel Prize is not enough for a man like him. And that one Nobel prize was not even for his two relativity theories but for his explanation of the photoelectric effect where he introduced reality of light quanta and thus started quantum theory.

And that he did not perform real experiments? There are theorists and there are experimentalists. And the two groups cooperate. He studied results of experiments and his genius was to notice and introduce few basic principles one can built theory upon. His imagination and intuition was extraordinary.

---

Now you are right to say that it was quantum state that "travelled" 25 kms across.
Quantum state is not real information which's FTL travel would violate causality.

And yes, the image contains information. But that "image information" does not travel faster than light. See the experimental setup on page 4 here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4318.pdf. There object O could be changed for another object. But that change would be detected in the detectors not instantly. Signal photons must first travel to the detectors.

No causality is violated here. No classical textbooks need to be rewritten.

---

Quantum physics is weird. At least current theory is weird. Just set of weird rules.

There is amazing study. Tests with fluids. With oil droplet bouncing along the surface of a liquid. From great article from Quanta Magazine Fluid Tests Hint at Concrete Quantum Reality by Natalie Wolchover

The experiments involve an oil droplet that bounces along the surface of a liquid. The droplet gently sloshes the liquid with every bounce. At the same time, ripples from past bounces affect its course. The droplet’s interaction with its own ripples, which form what’s known as a pilot wave, causes it to exhibit behaviors previously thought to be peculiar to elementary particles — including behaviors seen as evidence that these particles are spread through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured.

Particles at the quantum scale seem to do things that human-scale objects do not do. They can tunnel through barriers, spontaneously arise or annihilate, and occupy discrete energy levels. This new body of research reveals that oil droplets, when guided by pilot waves, also exhibit these quantum-like features.

We do not know yet what lies behind the weird rules of quantum mechanics. But with performing more and more experiments we little by little uncover the mystery. And this is start of new fascinating physics.

There is no end of physics.

1over137 wrote:The history was like this: Einstein wrote down his general relativity equation. Then he tried to apply it to cosmology. Since that time observations did not show universe was expanding he added the cosmological constant into his equation in such a way not to spoil the principles he based his equation on.

And Einstein deserves lot of credit for his works. One Nobel Prize is not enough for a man like him. And that one Nobel prize was not even for his two relativity theories but for his explanation of the photoelectric effect where he introduced reality of light quanta and thus started quantum theory.

And that he did not perform real experiments? There are theorists and there are experimentalists. And the two groups cooperate. He studied results of experiments and his genius was to notice and introduce few basic principles one can built theory upon. His imagination and intuition was extraordinary.

---

Now you are right to say that it was quantum state that "travelled" 25 kms across.
Quantum state is not real information which's FTL travel would violate causality.

And yes, the image contains information. But that "image information" does not travel faster than light. See the experimental setup on page 4 here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4318.pdf. There object O could be changed for another object. But that change would be detected in the detectors not instantly. Signal photons must first travel to the detectors.

No causality is violated here. No classical textbooks need to be rewritten.

---

Quantum physics is weird. At least current theory is weird. Just set of weird rules.

There is amazing study. Tests with fluids. With oil droplet bouncing along the surface of a liquid. From great article from Quanta Magazine Fluid Tests Hint at Concrete Quantum Reality by Natalie Wolchover

The experiments involve an oil droplet that bounces along the surface of a liquid. The droplet gently sloshes the liquid with every bounce. At the same time, ripples from past bounces affect its course. The droplet’s interaction with its own ripples, which form what’s known as a pilot wave, causes it to exhibit behaviors previously thought to be peculiar to elementary particles — including behaviors seen as evidence that these particles are spread through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured.

Particles at the quantum scale seem to do things that human-scale objects do not do. They can tunnel through barriers, spontaneously arise or annihilate, and occupy discrete energy levels. This new body of research reveals that oil droplets, when guided by pilot waves, also exhibit these quantum-like features.

We do not know yet what lies behind the weird rules of quantum mechanics. But with performing more and more experiments we little by little uncover the mystery. And this is start of new fascinating physics.

There is no end of physics.

There are no rules, if you are in a quantum place, or traveling thru the universe, while sitting at home. A top speed, is a rule, that can not exist, until all theories are dead and reality is known. Reality, is not known, sure it's good to look, and to theorize about places that we may never get to, but to say that light is the fastest traveler, in the universe, implies that the person, who said that light is the fastest thing in the universe, had knowledge of all things in the universe. Einstein, had no such knowledge, popping numbers in and out of an equation, until it appears to work, like the equation was a pie recipe, just doesn't work for me. Einstein's equations are missing 96 percent of the universe, would you pass a physics class, with a score of 4 out of a possible 100.......................No, you would fail, trust me, I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

Now the 4, might actually be the highest score ever, but there is still between 96 percent and 99.999 percent of all knowledge left to learn.

Who says that light is the fastest thing in the universe?

edit by a moderator: quotes below are taken from livescience.com http://www.livescience.com/38511-speed- ... ested.html

1over137 wrote:Who says that light is the fastest thing in the universe?

Ah, special relativity says that.... And the author of special relativity, is Albert Einstein.

The speed of light is considered to be the ultimate cosmic speed limit, thanks to Einstein's special theory of relativity. But physicists aren't content to assume this limit without testing it.

That's where a new experiment with electrons comes in. Physicists measured the energy required to change the speed of electrons as they hopped from one orbital to another inside atoms of dysprosium, all while Earth rotated over a 12-hour period. This allowed the scientists to measure that the maximum speed of an electron, which, according to special relativity should be the speed of light, is the same in all directions to within 17 nanometers per second. This measurement was 10 times more precise than previous tests of electrons' maximum speed.

So far, Einstein still comes out on top, and the theory holds. But the researchers hope to follow up the experiment with a more precise trial that might prove capable of poking holes in special relativity. That could actually be a good thing, scientists say, at least in terms of the advancement of physics. [10 Implications of Faster-Than-Light Travel]

"As a physicist, I want to know how the world works, and right now our best models of how the world works — the Standard Model of particle physics and Einstein's theory of general relativity — don't fit together at high energies," physicist Michael Hohensee of the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement. "By finding points of breakage in the models, we can start to improve these theories."

The next iteration of the experiment should be up to a thousand times more sensitive, which may prove powerful enough to finally discover deviations from the predictions of special relativity, potentially pointing the way toward a more sophisticated theory that can resolve some of the current mysteries of physics.

"This technique will open the door to studying a whole other set of parameters that could be even more interesting and important," Dmitry Budker, another physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement.

While similar questions about the speed of light could be investigated by high-powered experiments like the huge atom smasher in Switzerland, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the electron experiment here was relatively simple and inexpensive.

"You can try to probe these theories using big accelerators, but you would need to produce electrons with seven times the energy of the protons at the LHC," Hohensee said. "Or you can look at high-energy phenomena in distant stars or black holes, but those are not in the lab and not fully understood. Instead, we can look for evidence that the standard model or general relativity break at low-energy scales in small ways in a tabletop experiment."

Note, this experiment, is not related to the current Quantum spooky entanglement ones.

Weird rules of quantum mechanics include probability wave in the Schroedinger equation (equation does not describe a real wave but a probability wave - weird, isn't it?), commutation principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc.

1over137 wrote:Weird rules of quantum mechanics include probability wave in the Schroedinger equation (equation does not describe a real wave but a probability wave - weird, isn't it?), commutation principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc.

Mathematics, can not be weird. Mathematics can appear weird as you say, only if the fundamental parts of mathematics, the parts that are believed real and true, are in fact wrong in the first place, thus one math will contradict another math. Or there may be more than one kind of math needed, for different applications, or that Quantum math is not entirely related to other forms. Thus the mathematical model of everything, may well be impossible, or it might already exist, inside of an equation that is viewed as wrong. All is speculation.

Notice that thing is not the same as electron. Einstein does not claim that light is the fastest thing.

And your qoutes are from artcile named Einstein's Cosmic Speed Limit Still Reigns, for Now
Notice the - for Now.

TheQuestor wrote:

1over137 wrote:Weird rules of quantum mechanics include probability wave in the Schroedinger equation (equation does not describe a real wave but a probability wave - weird, isn't it?), commutation principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc.

Mathematics, can not be weird. Mathematics can appear weird as you say, only if the fundamental parts of mathematics, the parts that are believed real and true, are in fact wrong in the first place, thus one math will contradict another math. Or there may be more than one kind of math needed, for different applications, or that Quantum math is not entirely related to other forms. Thus the mathematical model of everything, may well be impossible, or it might already exist, inside of an equation that is viewed as wrong. All is speculation.

It's on everyone's taste to take it as weird or not.
My primary point was to show you there are rules in quantum mechanics.

1over137 wrote:Notice that thing is not the same as electron. Einstein does not claim that light is the fastest thing.

And your qoutes are from artcile named Einstein's Cosmic Speed Limit Still Reigns, for Now
Notice the - for Now.

Those accepting Einstein's theory of relativity, believe that light is the fastest traveling thing in the universe.

edit by a moderator: below is taken from http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/0 ... o-special/

Q: Why is the speed of light the fastest speed? Why is light so special?

Posted on August 3, 2010 by The Physicist


Physicist: The best way to think about it is; there is a speed (C) that is the fastest speed and, by the way, light goes that fast. There’s nothing special about light, it’s just a useful way of describing C (“the speed of light”). Photons are just another podunk massless particle, whipping around the universe as fast as fast can be.
Historically, the derivation of the strange properties of C (relativity) relies on a pretty straight forward piece of Einsteinian logic, based in part on an understanding of light.

1) All the laws of physics work the same, whether you’re moving or not. There is no experiment that can tell you whether or not you’re moving.

2) Light is an electromagnetic wave, and the velocity of these waves can be derived from Maxwell’s laws.

3) Maxwell’s laws, like all physical laws, are independent of how fast you’re moving. So the speed of light must also be independent of how fast you’re moving.

4) So, there exists a speed (the speed that light travels at) that is the same to everyone, no matter how fast they themselves are moving. Holy crap! There’s your special relativity!

So when you see equations like E=MC^2 (“energy equals mass times the speed of light squared”), you may ask yourself “what in the hell does light have to do with how much energy is stored in the mass of an object?” Well, the answer is it doesn’t. C is just a speed, and E=MC^2 and all the other equations with C would stay the same even if light didn’t exist at all.

So why is C the fastest speed? A good way to think of it is to first ask; how do you know when you’re moving faster than something else? If you’re driving down the highway and you’re moving faster than the car in front of you, then eventually you’ll pass that car. However, C is the same to everyone, no matter what. So, say a photon goes past you, and you try to catch up. But no matter how much you speed up, the photon will always be moving away at the speed of light. You can never catch up (or even come close to starting to catch up). So, regardless of perspective, the photon is always moving faster than you.
Some of this may seem seem contradictory, but surprisingly, it’s all self consistent. Very surprisingly.

That all said, Einstein, coming to answers, without ever viewing the question, which is the universe, does not in my opinion give a high probability of success, and at current, relativity scores a 4 out of 100 percent, as 96 percent of the universe is missing.

From wikibook http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_ ... Relativity
Special Relativity/Faster than light signals, causality and Special Relativity

(I checked the content of the article whether it aligns with what I have been taught at the university)

It is popularly imagined that Special Relativity forbids travel faster than the speed of light or the propagation of signals faster than the speed of light. However, the actual theory does not contain this assumption. The original theory, framed by Einstein in 1905, states that the speed of light in free space is constant in all inertial frames of reference so how did people in general come to believe that this implies a speed limit? The idea of a speed limit comes from two predictions of the theory, that inertia increases towards infinite as velocity approaches light speed and that causality, the succession of cause and effect, is violated if we could signal at speeds above the speed of light.

Special relativity does not imply that all things have to travel by the speed not greater than light. Special relativity implies that no energy, mass or information can travel with faster than light speed.

And please note that you cannot quote articles without referencing them. It goes against the property rights and against the forum rules.

P.S.: I hoped to teach you something from Physics...

1over137 wrote:From wikibook http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_ ... Relativity
Special Relativity/Faster than light signals, causality and Special Relativity

(I checked the content of the article whether it aligns with what I have been taught at the university)

It is popularly imagined that Special Relativity forbids travel faster than the speed of light or the propagation of signals faster than the speed of light. However, the actual theory does not contain this assumption. The original theory, framed by Einstein in 1905, states that the speed of light in free space is constant in all inertial frames of reference so how did people in general come to believe that this implies a speed limit? The idea of a speed limit comes from two predictions of the theory, that inertia increases towards infinite as velocity approaches light speed and that causality, the succession of cause and effect, is violated if we could signal at speeds above the speed of light.

Special relativity does not imply that all things have to travel by the speed not greater than light. Special relativity implies that no energy, mass or information can travel with faster than light speed.

And please note that you cannot quote articles without referencing them. It goes against the property rights and against the forum rules.

P.S.: I hoped to teach you something from Physics...

It is just completely illogical, for any mathematical formula, or any other postulate of any kind, to say that the speed of light is a universal maximum, unless, the theorist, has knowledge of everything in the universe. This is the ignorance of man, as this repeats, and repeats, and repeats. Again, if Edwin Hubbel, did not invite Einstein to Palomar, and show him the red shift, that DISPROVED EINSTEINS static universe, the static universe might still be taught.

That said, Hubbel might well be wrong, again 99.999 percent of all knowledge is 100 percent unknown, to any and or all humans.