Printable View
One theory is that if you pass the speed of light, that you would be traveling backwards in time. How you would do that is beyond me, but just a suggestion.
Also, acording to another of einsteins theories, time travels in a circle, so if you go forward far enough, you will eventually go into the past
when you get to the end of universe......
you have to reformat http://www.nature.com/nsu/020527/020527-16.html
The common consensus among physicists seems to be that the Universe is finite in size, but unbounded (ie, you can never reach the edge). A simple example of such a structure is a circle. It has a finite size, but if you keep travelling along the circle, you never reach the "end".Quote:
Originally posted by e_dawg
Since this universe is affected by space and time, it is obviously finite, so there is no way you can leave it, but I cannot even say what would happen when you hit the end...
That would screw up x,y,z, wouldn't it? If you travel in one direction, you are not travelling around a circle (hopefully), so you should be able to reach an outer edge eventually. As I said, there is no way we could do it no matter how advanced our technology gets due to the fact that humans could not last long enough for that trip. Think about it: We live in one of a very large number of galaxies, we live on a planet that is absolutely tiny in comparison to our own star, which is not even a very large star... Now, look up into the night sky, and try to count the stars you can see (a very limitied number are visible to your naked eye from earth) -- that is a just small fraction of the stars in our galaxy. And that is just one of an unbelieveable number of galaxies.Quote:
Originally posted by Hey Yoda
The common consensus among physicists seems to be that the Universe is finite in size, but unbounded (ie, you can never reach the edge). A simple example of such a structure is a circle. It has a finite size, but if you keep travelling along the circle, you never reach the "end".
Not if the curvature was in a forth dimension. Think of it this way, pretend you are a being only capable of perceiving two dimensions. (Heck there are a lot that can only perceive one in the CPU forum. ;) )Quote:
Originally posted by e_dawg
That would screw up x,y,z, wouldn't it? If you travel in one direction, you are not travelling around a circle (hopefully), so you should be able to reach an outer edge eventually.
Now imagine you are walking along the surface of a ball. Since you have no perception of height the ball seems perfectly flat to you. You start out walking along that surface in what you perceive to be a straight line. Eventually you end up back in the same place even though you never turned. The truth is you did turn, just not in a dimension you were capable of perceiving.
Similarly, our x, y, z coordinate system could be obeyed perfectly, with the same effect.
For some interesting reading on this subject, check out Flatland and Sphereland by Edwin AbbottQuote:
Originally posted by chucko
My boss at work was trying to explain how, for example, a 2 dimensional thing can't understand a 3 dimensional thing. his example was that you can unfold a simple box into a line and vis-versa, then you can unfold a cube into a box; similar to unfolding a 3 dimensional object (hypothetically speaking) into a 2 dimensional object then unfolding again into a 1 dimensional object. if this pattern is consistent, then a 3rd dimensional thing could fold into a 4th dimensional thing, unimaginable to a 3rd dimensional human. eh, hope thats kinda clear, my boss did a good job of explaining it to me with a drawing :p .
well anyways, then he was saying how some scientist believe that there are like 20 dimensions or something. when it comes to trying to understand the universe, i dont even know where to begin, theres so many possibilities its crazy.
WARNING HIGHLY SPECULATIVE RAMBLINGS AHEAD
Can someone here theorise or postulate what a 5 dimensional universe would be like?
If dimensions are percieved rules pertaining to the universe in question, then is it logical to state that our 4 dimensional universe binds us by linear time alone, meaning that because we percieve time as linear, we cannot by will alone, travel into the past or future. Therefore we exist in the present. Would a 5 dimensional being be able to transcend these limitations?
I would imagine a 5 dimensional entity, should be able to experience time without the contraints of the linear version we do. Therefore a 5d being can exist at any point in time and probably exists in all points in time simultaneously. Just a thought, I've always pondered when ppl with NDEs(Near Death Experience) say they saw their whole life flash before their eyes, it might be cliche now, but perhaps this is only a glimpse of what a 5d state would entail. Now of course a 5d state would still have boundaries, just not the same ones we experience.
If scientist postulate upto 20 dimensions I wonder how the heck they envisage these universes working. Is a 6 dimension universe/multiverse/what have you, mean that you have all the 3 dimensions of length, width, height plus linear time plus another 2 dimensions of time ie since linear time is 1d time, perhaps 2d or 3d time whatever that is.
Man I should stop doing this... *pops a vein on his forehead*
I've never quite understood how even a four-dimensional (physically, time not included) universe would look. I used to care about that, but from what I can tell, nobody really understands it; we just understand that we are incapable of imagining it. :) If someone could point me towards some sort of essay/book/website that actually does explain it in terms that make sense, I would be grateful. Time may actually be a fourth physical dimension that we don't perceive clearly, but I doubt it. That just wouldn't make sense. :)
Here is an example of a 4D object. The tesseract...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~hjsmith/WireF...tesseract.html
Remember this isn’t quite a 4 dimensional object. It’s a 4 dimensional object mapped into 2 dimensions. Think of it line a 3D image on a computer screen. What you are actually looking at is a 2 dimensional image, because it’s on a computer screen, but it is mapped and laid out in such a way that it looks like a real 3 dimensional object would.Quote:
Originally posted by dq386
Here is an example of a 4D object. The tesseract...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~hjsmith/WireF...tesseract.html
The difference here is that we think in three dimensions not 4 so our brains can interpret the 3D case, the 4D case often doesn’t make as much sense as it should. For example, if I’m not mistaken, each of the lines in that picture represents an “outer edge” of the object in 4 dimensions. Our brains just don’t make sense of this the way they would with a 3 dimensional image.
Mathematically we can say a lot about 4 dimensional space, but trying to visualize it isn’t going to work all that well.
i have a question. i was wondering if there was anything in the whole world that could attract photons to it?
any thing with mass, in the sense that the path of the photons would be bent towars the object and when u have something as massive as a black hole light would be trapped if it goes too close to it (ove the event horizon)
Light is related to the electromagenetic field. I'd imagine that electromagnetic waves would have an effect on light.
Well put. In math, many of the times you're discussing 4-D objects, you're usually assigning a quality to a fixed point in 3-D space. Density is a very common example of this. Indeed there are numerous examples of situations where you try to fit a certain attribute to a coordinate, in the process "adding" a dimension. Calculus 3 (and some of 2) deals with a lot of this. There are ways to manipulate this in specific cases where for example you can turn a triple integral into a double integral or vice versa. Stokes/Divergence theorems come to mind as such examples, but regardless of how many dimensions you're dealing with, its difficult to visualize dimensions beyond three. After this you simply have to conceptualize dimensions.Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin
Mathematically we can say a lot about 4 dimensional space, but trying to visualize it isn’t going to work all that well.
The best way I can think of it is to say that its more conceptualizing rather than visualizing fourth or higher order dimensions.
Personally I think of higher order dimensions as qualities attributed to a point in 3-D or 2-D space. This maybe time or density or a number of other things, but the concept is still the same.
Teleportation of a beam of photons has been reported to be sucessful. Read this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci...00/2049048.stm
It's a very strange phenomenon which raises several more questions.
Nice find!!! That article is very interesting, and this is a very promising discovery. The part about encrypted info, is very promising. Here is hoping this developes into something useful for everyone.
pretty old, now they can do laser teleportation
...which was mentioned in the article, I think...Quote:
Originally posted by Tracker00
pretty old, now they can do laser teleportation
Here's another link to the story from Yahoo News.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...eleportation_1
Arcadian
I read about this a long time ago in Scientific American!
Not too long now before their teleporting atoms, molecules, then eventually us!
Light IS an electromagnetic field. In one sense, everything from radio to x-ray could be considered different "colors" of light, since they are the same thing at different frequencies. Other than interference, electromagnetic radiation has no effect on other electromagnetic radiation. Gravity does.Quote:
Originally posted by elimc
Light is related to the electromagenetic field. I'd imagine that electromagnetic waves would have an effect on light.
I doubt that, there's a huge difference between teleporting photons and teleporting matter.Quote:
Originally posted by hu flung dung
I read about this a long time ago in Scientific American!
Not too long now before their teleporting atoms, molecules, then eventually us!
as far as i know their not teleporting photons either it's only in theory
You will NOT be able to see the lightbeams from your headlamps. I'm assuming you are sitting in the drivers seat of your Taurus, and therefore you have no line of sight to your headlamps.Quote:
Originally posted by elimc
This may be a simple problem but it has been bugging me. If you make a car that can travel at .9999999999999 the speed of light (which 1986 Ford Tauruses can do) and you turn on your headlights, will you be able to see the headlights in front of you?
If the answer is yes:
Then wouldn't this violate the Law of General Relativity?
If the answer is no:
This would mean that the speed of light is relative. In that case, how can we observe the speed of light without it breaking the Law of General Relativity since earth is moving at half a million miles per hour.
------------------
*Creative Statement*
Now if there was something in your path to reflect the light back at you then you would see it, but that seems like cheating. The complicated Physics is not needed, as the problem is simple. I don't think that is the answer you are looking for, but its the answer that takes the least thought to prove.
What are you crazzy??? That would disrupt the time space continuem and forever alter history by causing a rift, Great Scott!!!Quote:
Originally posted by Rado
Maybe you could ask yourself (the other you who arrived) how the trip was BEFORE starting. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif
These are the sort of absurdities we run into when time travel is "emulated" in our brains.
in other words it owuld be like an endless loop? Not even a cray could solve this loop.