19:40 What these events all have in common is coincidence. Coincident events (from a shadow, laser pointer, fissure in a piece of paper, or illumination front) aren't objects. They're not "things". It's true that "nothing can travel faster than light" because these counter-examples fail to meet the criteria of beings "things" at all. Some have fictive concepts that track the coincident events like the shape of the shadow and the geometrical ray of a laser pointers. Others have an explicative cause that can be given a noun referent in English like "the cut in the paper" or "the illumination front". But these concepts represent events, not objects. Christmas isn't an object that exists in reality. It's an event that has a proper noun referent.
@@yourguard4 In short: Dr. Nemiroff made a mistake due to philosophical confusion. This can happen when scientists step outside their field of expertise.
@@jessepollard7132 r/confidentlyincorrect virtual projections (a displayed projection) may appear to move faster than light (whithin the projection), but that is because they are a stream of parallel particles, that all move at light speed, that give the illusion of not being parallel, and that have some virtual synchronization for apparent movement between them.
both of you are wrong, kind of, shadows dont have a limit, because they do not exist, you cant put a limit or speed on something that doesnt exist, so ''there's no limit' is wrong because there is nothing to even define
Imagine into the future it will look even more unlikely time machines will ever become a possibility and everyone who even thinks about trying will be stopped by the argument, people would have come from the future with time machines already if it would be possible. But the only reason why no one from the future ever came was because no one in the past ever considered the idea worth enough committing his whole life to it :D Until some crazy guy loses his wife and refuses to accept it until he builds and actual time machine but instead of sharing his idea with humanity he loses himself and his invention in time. Millions of years in the future, where it's out of reach for humanity. Well done, crazy scientist, well done...
I feel like describing the level-arm of a stream of photons moving faster than the speed of light is nothing more than a pedantic gotcha. Nothing is moving faster than light here, there's just a false perception of a collection of things that we categorize as a single "thing" that is moving faster than light. This is just a semantic construct that people are going to take as an example of an exception which they'll likely try to apply to things where the rules actually apply. Nothing travels faster than light. If you think you have something that moves faster than the speed of light, it isn't a real thing, it's some sort of semantic construct that someone is trying to muddy the water.
Well if you actually read the book, he goes into the differentiation between things that happen in objective reality and things that happen to a subjective observer, explaining pretty much what you were trying to say there but in no way tries to "muddy the waters" as you put it because he's very clearly not being disingenuous in his approach.
Question: if we can move faster than light, then i can easily find my car key by travelling very fast, passing the light from when i came home, turn around and take a picture of that light for then to easily retrieve my keys? Hay! Why do i need a car if i can move faster than my car can move?
@@chris-terrell-liveactive - but I do not know I have lost something before I need it? When I start looking for my car keys the light from when I came home must be out at jupiter or pluto?
@doncarlodivargas5497 we shall call you the "Flash" and stop losing your keys! 😂 I wonder if that physicist went after Frasier for having "wild" thoughts or dream scenarios. I reckon you know who I am referring to. 😉 Have a great day internet stranger! 🍻🌎♥️🎶🕺 P.S. - Why'd you go for a run to Pluto or Jupiter without me? I told you not to take the spaceship for a ride without offering a chance to get some good galactic pizza or tacos! Hmph! 😊 I'll get the food, but you're covering gas this time. Oh yeah, gas probably wouldn't be used even if just more of using a familiar term, but not all can grasp things like that. 😮
Well shadows can't move faster than the speed of light, because a shadow is not an entity. If an area is already in light and you start sweeping away the light, it's the speed of photons which dictate the absence of light (shadow). If you rotate the source of light around the speed of light, photons will be lagging behind one another, like water lagging behind when you swing a water hose with water running. The absence of photons will be the shadow. It's not breaking any laws of physics. Unlike photons, shadow is not an object, weightless or otherwise. So the concept itself doesn't make any sense.
It makes sense to intelligent people since the speed a shadow is moving is dependent on 2 factors and not only one. One factor is the speed of the object, which is throwing the shadow. The other is the light source itself. If an object is moving at the speed of light and the light source is moving by 1 mile per hour, the shadow of the object will move 1 mile per hour faster than light speed. Because of the very reason that a shadow is not matter and there is nothing speaking against it accelerating above the speed of light. You're welcome bro. Next time read a wiki article before looking stupid online.
@@NoqtisYou misunderstood their comment. They know shadows can appear to move faster than light, they broke down an example of that happening in their comment. Their point was it is not real example of a thing moving faster than light, because shadows are not things. A shadow is not an object, it's an event. A shadow sweeping across a distant wall can appear to move at whatever speed it likes, because it's not an object with a velocity, it's simply the process of photons not hitting spots on the wall. Nothing in the system is actually moving faster than light, because the things producing the event, the photons, are all still moving at c. To quote wikipedia since you mentioned it "In the following examples, certain influences may appear to travel faster than light, but they do not convey energy or information faster than light, so they do not violate special relativity. Light spots and shadows If a laser beam is swept across a distant object, the spot of laser light can easily be made to move across the object at a speed greater than c.[6] Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move across the object faster than c.[6] In neither case does the light travel from the source to the object faster than c, nor does any information travel faster than light.[6][7][8]" It's the same as how you can have a row of lights and by turning the lights on and off in sequence you can make a dot appear to move. You can make that dot appear to move at whatever speed you like, even faster than light, because nothing here is actually moving. The lamps are stationary, the photons emited by the lamps are moving at c. The only thing that appears to move ftl is the dot, but the dot isn't really moving, it's just an illusion produced by the lamps turning on and off. A shadow is no different. A shadow on a wall is just where a patch of the wall isn't being hit with light. It can appear to move by having new parts of the wall go dark, just like how you can make the dot appear to move by having new lamps light up. And just like in that case, you can make a shadow appear to move with whatever speed you like, because it's not an object, and it's motion is an illusion. So it's only an example of something moving faster than light if you have a really loose definition of "thing" and "move".
Technically a shadow (0:15), simply being the absence of light, can only move at the speed at which light retreats or vacates the space in which it previously occupied. So this statement cannot be true for light in any medium. On the other hand, humankind is likely at a level of math somewhere between kindergarten and grade 2 comparatively to the math involved in the entire universe. It would be typically (and arrogantly) human to think we really know anything at all.
It's perplexing how universities inhibit the quest for knowledge. They should be a place were the pursuit of knowledge should thrive. Albert Einstein was working as a patient clerk when he wrote his papers on Reality and General Reality. These papers were revolutionary and probably wouldn't have been accepted or supported by any universities at the time.
If we could measure spin without causing collapse (measure without measuring) then we could use the measurements themselves as a form of communication. This particle was measured so it equals one. This particle hasn't been measured/collapsed so is equals zero. Drawback if possible would be that you have to start out with one-time use array/collection of entangled particles and then separate them at the needed distance without losing coherence. Quantum computing has a hard time keeping particles entangled. But, we could have 1024 entangled particles on a Satellite Probe and the other 1024 on Earth and you could receive a one-time message of one kilobit at FTL.
First of all the expression is 'nothing can go faster than the (so called) speed of light, in a vacuum.' A shadow is not a thing, in and of it's self. A shadow is the relative absence of the phenomenon you're comparing it to, being impeded by something, which contextually means, that a shadow quite literally is 'nothing', So, the statement in that regard, holds perfectly true enough'. Speaking of 'impedance', is light not electromagnetic phenomena like the rest of the Electromagnetic Spectrum? If the so called speed of light is constant and consistent in a vacuum, and only apparently 'slows down' when impeded by something with mass, but returns to it's so called 'speed' once it returns to a vacuum, then we're not really taking about 'speed', and speed of light is a misnomer; Because when an object is traveling at a known speed in a vacuum, and is impeded or interfered with momentarily, it does not simply return to the same speed in a vacuum, without being acted upon by another force to return the energy or speed it's lost. So, light doesn't actually have a 'speed' , per say, but rather what you're measuring, or actually referring to is 'rate of induction' because you can't make light go 'faster', than it inherently does in a vacuum, by simply putting more energy into it. Light from a super nova even doesn't move through the vacuum of space any faster than light from a flashlight in space, in spite of the almost incomprehensible energy disparity. So, basically the 'speed of light' , is a more nonsensical combination of words than, 'my pet bowl of oatmeal, needs a rabies booster, in honor of your mother'. 🤷♂
APOD is such a great institution. Been following it since I was in college, when they were still posting etchings of the most recent terrifying celestial potents.
He plays very loose with the word "move". He describes "things" "moving" faster than light. I think it would be more accurate to say "effects are propagating faster than light". A shadow is not a thing, it is an effect, and it does not "move" it propagates. I think one good way of thinking about it is this. There are two atoms next to one another, two photons are shot at those two atoms, one aimed at each, but they are not shot at exactly the same time, one is ever so slightly behind the other such that the time difference in time between the first atom getting hit by the photon, and the second atom getting hit by the proton makes the "effect" of illumination happen faster than light, but no "thing" is actually "moving" faster than light, he is just playing very loose with he definition of "thing" and "move". Same with scizors, a "cut" is not a thing, two atoms being separated is an effect, and that effect does not "move", it propagates.
Two unrelated observations: 1. How do shadoe bannnd people get their good ideas heard 2. Speaking to the RNA issue, yes, they made advances in knowledge, but have we advanced in our knowledge of something that, because we're so new at this, is dangerous because of our limited knowledge? Drs. McCullough, Malone and Cole speak to this in alternative venues. Also, society depends on good behavior. Knowledge of fire is good and useful but bad people can weaponize it (arson). Ditto for RNA, which in the wrong hands can be made to be more dangerous to us, ultimately even more so than nuclear weapons. Maybe the motivation to do this is simply to make huge amounts of money...
@Fraser Cain The best and more intuitive way I have seen Entanglement explained that makes sense is picture a ripple in a pond from a stone radiating out. Now if two people stood on opposite shores and took measurements of those ripples no matter how far apart those two observers are they can instantly know the state of the wave their colleague measured despite the space between them being longer than what light would take. Its akin the illumination front Dr Nemiroff spoke of. Thinking of it this way makes it clear why we can not send information faster than light and its because the information was contained in the rock which hit the pond initially and not where the observers sit. It takes a finite amount of time to make it to each shore and when measured the time it took to get to each will be less than light speed. Now, with that being said there was a relatively recent experiment with beam splitters and FFT where they vibrated the mirrors to fully know which light past as they could detect the specific mirrors frequency in the output and they found after stringing multiple beam splitters and using differing frequency for each path that the only logical conclusion we could come to in specific cases is that the light started at the end point and worked back while ALSO taking the forward path at the same time. This starts to lean us towards a type of retro-causality I believe Fermi discussed a while back then dropped in which light is a standing wave going forwards and backwards in time. It also gives weight to the Bloc universe which states its all a huge static interference pattern yet we are moving through that in a sheet of time causing us to see a holographic representation in 3D of that 4D universe. This whole paragraph is hypothesis of various people but they all have reasoning but no solid proof however I tend to lead to it as my weightiest hypothesis for a Theory of Everything type of understanding. PS: If it exist I will no doubt publish my ground breaking Theory of Everything in your Science Journal :D . That is only semi a joke as well cuz I have been working on something for few years which not only is mostly consistent with General Relativity but also QM via the use of an Absolute frame of reference as a whole, Time as a physical dimension with Mass energy resisting the flow towards a specific place such that when an object moves the speed of light they are actually stationary for the first time ever against the universal reference frame explain in part why C is the limit. Idk, I would go into more detail but A: its all likely wrong and B: Would suck if its not and someone else gets the ideas and i wasted all this time. That being said though. If its wrong its kinda fully how many of the various Constants of Nature just magically appear out of our universes dimensions and properties even though modern physics holds these values to be dimensionless. If we find their dimensions should they have them we can make them vanish thus simplifying tons of work.
17:20 Shadows don't travel faster than light. Shadows are defined by an absence of light, and information about that absence propagates as the lack of arriving photons that were blocked. The hypothetical, blocked photon paths travel at the speed of light by definition. With a laser pointer, the direction indicated by the geometrical ray of the pointer may intersect with one particular star in the sky, and then a few seconds later, it may intersect with another star 100 light years away from the first. But the photons from the laser pointer don't arrive for decades. Nothing travelled faster than light besides a fictive geometrical ray. Fictive things aren't real. It's banal to say fictive things can travel faster than light.
I just learned about 33 Polyhymnia - the asteroid with the "mysteriously dense" composition. How could we get something there to explore, and what do you think is going on?
Some of the asteroids in the study had low precision estimates of their mass, and so any with unrealistic densities were ignored. The study tried to estimate the gravitational influence of asteroids on each other, so any imprecise knowledge of their orbits or masses would lead to some with unrealistic masses or densities.
@@rensin2 That will be figured out the day or two afterwards! I just hope we keep learning and figuring this stuff out, it's awesome! Have a wonderful day everyone! 🍻🌎❤️🎶🕺🏻🔭🚀🛰️
@@rensin2 Oh, I LOVE multiple choice! a- Why bother? We are still too stupid. b- They're really nasty- quite logical, if they're roughly the same over-brained chimps as us. bsub1- They enjoy the joke, why ruin it? bsub2- They're here and staying quiet because they enjoy watching the suffering.
Well it's pretty much a trick question. A shadow is not made of matter, just like an illumination front. It's just a projection and the way we perceive it because of our angle or view. But it's actually just different photons hitting the target next to another. It is still my understanding that no matter moves faster than the speed of light in space, but space can expand faster than the speed of light. If it was a Yes or No question, I'd also say No. Just as I cannot run faster than a race car at top speed, even if I'm running on a treadmill pushing me forward at 400kmh in a relay race where I just have to shine a laser to one of my clone just before the finish line to tell them to cross it.
Abandoning Time correlated with space time and returning to visual epochs and scale as we leave abstract paper behind puts an emphasis on image learning. Our youth are not thinking like factory worker children of some industrial revolutionary mindset
When two black holes collide with one another, do they stay as two separate continuous objects and then merge into a larger black hole? OR.. As the smaller black hole begins to near way more massive black hole does the roche limit effect the smaller black hole in any way, so that the smaller black hole is no longer a single continuous object and instead turns into a stream of particles/energy (spaghettifaction) as it almost gets sucked into the larger black hole?
That depends on whether the singularity (or the accumulated matter/energy of which its made) is able to BE spaghettified, or not! It's a fascinating image, but I don't know if we have a good handle on the physics of all of that. For instance, if spaghettification of BHs were a thing, then there probably wouldn't be an actual "Final Parsec Problem" relating to the merger of supermassive BHs. Trouble is, our LIGO measurements of smaller BH mergers seems to indicate they happen more or less instantly, which wouldn't happen if they were stretched or spread out by gravity. That would seem to show that spaghettification is NOT a thing BHs do - at least the stellar mass ones - but I doubt there are strong limits on that data yet.
A great episode! Blurring the lines between "things" (light, spaceships, galaxies) and "no-thing" (shadows, perceptions, illumination) in a playful way that can stimulate new perspectives. This is where I agree strongly with the idea of a journal for speculative scientific enquiry, already known to produce results but unpredictable, hence funds are withheld. This would be a really beneficial project, sadly I am less wealthy (financially) than Mr Musk, or I would let you have a few $M to play with!
If things falling into a black hole will eventually look to an outside observer as if they have frozen in time then why do we not simply see a black just packed full of stuff that looks to be frozen in time? Yes I am aware of how bad I suck at phrasing a question, I'm ignorant but I'm at least trying to correct that issue
The best way ive found to demonstrate that the old nothing is faster than light depends on circumstance, is cherenkov (spelling) radiation. Massless stuff in vacuum is the fastest bits in space, except for space itself. After i get understanding from showing the blue glow of a reactor i immediately shatter it with the "space can move faster than light" and i usually get 2 or 3 that understand all the way through
Entanglement is pretty underwhelming if you forget why hidden variable theories are rejected; it's kind of mundane for two observers to make opposite observations if the results were determined in advance at the particle source. Hidden variables ought to be the focus of any public presentation of entanglement.
24:43 - How can we loose the ability to communicate with the Andromeda galaxy? I always thought (and still think) that it is moving towards us and will eventually collide with the Milky Way. Is there new science that disproved that?
The way i understand quantum entanglement : "Take a pair of sock, as soon as i wear the first sock on my right foot, the other one instantaneously become the left sock (wherever it is in the universe)"
Sorry Doc Rob, no none of your examples ‘travel faster than light,’ not shadows, not laser pointers, not scissors, not cameras. I believe these have been proven to obey the law but someone correct me if I’m wrong
The point about this conversation is just that things can appear to move faster than the speed of light, but they're not actually moving faster than the speed of light
Gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong, light cannot escape. Gravity is therefore accelerating light towards the core at light speed, any object accelerating towards core will therefore accelerate to multiple times light speed.
I'd love to better understand the difference between the event horizon of a black hole and the effect described around 24:25 is an event horizon stars that have already fallen in? Or are these two different things entirely. Loved this interview! Please make this journal!
As I understand it, the EH is where all of the swallowed stars are falling in, but since the rate of time there is zero, there can be no past tense there, only out here where time is passing (at almost the speed of light?). Consequently, they are not falling at all, except relative to the 'growing' Schwarzschild radius (due to the accumulating mass & gravity).
The event horizon, is the “distance” from the singularity, that light can never pass (if that light is emitted from within that region). So if you and a friend were floating around a black hole, and your friend got too close… and your friend is pointing a laser at you… When your friend passes the event horizon (falls within that distance from the singularity), no more light from the laser can ever reach you… and you will only be seeing light that was emitted OUTSIDE of that distance, before your friend crossed that “horizon”… and that light will continually be redshifted (stretched), so, rather than “blinking out”, it slowly fades.
Perhaps we need a "salon des refuses" for science? The term "salon des refusés" refers to an art exhibition in France in the 19th century. It was initiated by Napoleon III in 1863 as a response to the controversy surrounding the selection of artworks for the official Salon of the French Academy. Many avant-garde and unconventional artworks that were rejected by the Academy were displayed at the Salon des Refusés. This exhibition is significant because it provided exposure to artists who were often marginalized or considered radical at the time.
Frasers channel has credibility at this point. It was alluded to in this interview actually. If fraser were to entertain crackpots or grifters for interviews that credibility would disappear shockingly fast. Fraser will not do it. In a very real sense fraser IS a journal, and fraser keeps these "wonderful new speculative ideas" down too. Thats a good thing though. Uneducated crackpots and grifters need to be kept down and when an einstein or newton comes along they will do just fine.
@@deltalima6703 I am not asking him to change his sceptical approach, only flag such things that sometimes come from legitimate corners as belonging to this speculative group, as he already does. See my other reply
I think I saw some videos of well respected youtubers as Kurzgesagt where they say in far future you won't be able to see distant galaxies because they went out of view and we will think our galaxy is the only one in the universe. How come Nemiroff says thay will never disappear? I am confused
Minor correction: the images we got of the black holes aren't of the event horizon. They show the shadow of the black hole, which has a diameter much larger than the event horizon
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I was thinking in terms of, how often do the pairs form and how easy is it to disturb the pairing. Like is it a certainty or something that happens 3 out of 5 or 10 times.
@@kylegoldston That depends on the details of the experiment. E. g. how the pairs are formed, what particles are used, what environment is used (e. g. how good is the vacuum used in the experiment) etc.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Ah, see, that's my point. I'm wondering if it's a certainty or a statistical probability that a pair forms. If you need 2,000 atoms to get 2 or 3 pairs, is that really the same as 6 atoms in = 3 pairs output? I don't think so, but what do I know. I do have some theories on the subject however.
@@kylegoldston As I said: The probability that a pair forms depends on the experiment. As far as I know, there are types of experiments where its essentially a certainty. What "theories" do you have, and on what knowledge and experience do you base these "theories"? Do you even know what "entangled state" actually _means_ in quantum physics, how that term is actually defined?
The laser pointer example that in an accelerating, expanding universe, we and and another galaxy each move in opposite directions at more than 1/2 C, easy to comprehend that light will never return. Does not answer whether each galaxy will ever move more than the speed of light? Time is infinite? FYI, Doppler example is full of Survivorship Bias as the why that happens.
Good to see you doing this interview with Bob (his book is decent too). If i could tell you the number of times i've tried to explain the "c" is about infornstion, not a speed limit... And the number of people arguing until they're blue in the face because they've been reared on the trope "Speed of light is the cosmic speed limit for evrrthing in existsnce and nothing ever can ever go faster ever!". Now i can just tell them to read Bob's book and get back to me. 😂
Hi Fraser, have a question - how can there be an infinite universe if everything started at a singularity and has been expanding at some finite speed since then? Unless the Big Bang banged "into" something that already existed?
20:10 This seems to demonstrate that RPM is not relative. It's absolute. This is also supported by centrifugal force. A flat earther tried to strawman RPM as "relative" and I used CF to debunk him. 😅
isn't the scissors paradox about scissors without a paper? would you please clarify this in your q&a show? How can you move the molecules of paper faster than light when they have mass?
Molecules don't move faster than light(the molecules move sideways from the blades) , the cutting travel faster than light, that effect travel in straight line from the base of scissors to the tip, cutting isn't made from atoms or molecules , it's something that happens to the paper. Also cutting don't originate from the base of scissor, his origin is from the two separate blades that are coming together and also each move slower than the speed of light.
Would there be a sound that corresponds with the speed of light? I know sound needs an atmosphere (or matter period?) to exist, but if you moved a particle or wave through an atmosphere at 300k km/sec.. what would it "sound" like...? Absolutely love this interview.. I think this is my third time listening..
I guess I have heard "audio" of the CMB.. is that it? is there any sound to light in general, let alone different wavelengths? Does red shift really work like the doppler effect, modulating pitch based on relative speed?? All the best..
Veritasium says our visible universe is getting larger, because space is expanding, and things which are currently outside of our visible universe will later become visible.
Yes! Make that journal happen! Call it “Journal of the Future,” or “Fringe,” or “Journal of New.” If I had a several million dollars, I’d cut a check to start publishing that sight-unseen.
Depends on if light is going through a vacuum though. There are some mediums light can go through, but relative to what is normally considered it's really slow.
re 0:02 Is it a 'thing' if it has no mass? Is a shadow a thing? Does a shadow have volume (3 dimensions), or is it only the surface(s) where that light does not fall? How can a shadow move faster than the light that it does not contain? ;-) (I'm sure this is not an original idea.) re 47:27 'the universe is growing in a fraction of a second' but relative to our rate of time, that fraction of a second could have taken trillions of years, due to the contemporary mass density & rate of time. Great meta-science discussion too!
"Is it a 'thing' if it has no mass?" Why not? Are photons not things for you? "Does a shadow have volume (3 dimensions), or is it only the surface(s) where that light does not fall?" Shadows are always regions in space, not only surfaces, so yes, they have volume. " but relative to our rate of time, that fraction of a second could have taken trillions of years, due to the contemporary mass density & rate of time" Mass density on its own doesn't influence the rate of time, you need a specific mass _distribution_ for that.
@you2tooyou2too Energy/mass is related to time. The answer for your first question is no, second question is no also. If a shadow was traced out by a single photon it could not move faster than light. It is not though it is traced by numerous photons, and these have seperate speeds for different aspects of them, some of which act as though they are faster than light because they are interference patterns. The underlying light that creates these interference patterns still travels at c. The peaks can travel faster than c but they are created from waves that went before. Its subtle, the speaker (robert) mentioned it when he was talking about phase velocity, but there is a subtlety there that even he is missing. You dont really understand it until you learn how it is that light slows down in glass. TLDR: yes shadows move faster than the light they dont contain, no shadows are not really a thing. Photons are a thing since they contain energy which is mass.
Would it be possible to spin a buckyball using some kind of language system based on a sphere so that the quantumly entangled buckyball on the other end with spin in the same direction indicating the desired character?
Sadly no. The spin if a subatomic particle is an intrinsic angular momentum but isn't rotation in a conventional sense. When you split a particle in two this angular momentum is conserved so if you split a particle with spin 0 the spins of the new particles must be opposite. Problem is in quantum physics the particles don't have a set spin until measured. Changing the spin of one particle after the fact won't change the other.
Everything beyond redshift of 1.4 is moving away from us faster than light (according to standard model LCDM), not sure what he means redshift of 3 refers to but it seems to be if our universe had no dark energy.
Great interview! Random unrelated thought for the questions show: Is or was there ever any plan or proposal for a „reduced gravity habitat“ in orbit for mice or something? I imagine a rotating hamster cage module to simulate moon or Mars gravity rodent scale? Then we at least know how they handle 1/6G for a few months, maybe even reproducing. If not for mice maybe at least for insects or smaller critters to reduce the radius. Or the other way around: has anybody ever tried having any living thing endure higher gravity in centrifuges for extended periods?
You ought to call that journal, something like, "Outsider Science", or "Scientific Outsider", in the way, non-academically associated art, is generally called outsider art.
In HUT (Holographic Universe Theory) inspired by David Bohm's concept to explain FTL "communication" between entangled particles, describes a "Higher reality" in the universe where ALL particles exist but without space dimensions. Our own "Lower reality" "3D" universe is but a shared "illusion of our perception" of certain wave attributes of the particle that we SEE as coordinates in a 3D universe. Thus entangled particles are right "next to each other" in the REAL Higher Reality but may be light years "apart" in our 3D Lower reality. They thus appear to "communicate" FTL in our "lower reality.
I don't understand how most of these phenomena can move faster than light. Maybe if I bought his book I could. A paper cut is a very small physical thing, constrained by mechanics. The shadow of the sun on Earth appears to move at a small distance. If you turn your head, you only get a weak, unconvincing illusion of movement. A moving laser (or very distant shadow) is more like a signal being turned on and off instead of "moved". Distant, receding astronomical objects, yes.
You can utilize a predetermined gauge by "observing" in determined patterns. That's how you communicate via quantum entanglement. And to troubleshoot anomalist errors, you overwhelm each character by multiplied force. This can be done through Quantum Computers by utilizing calculations as individual characters in a predetermined "gauge" mentioned above. This isn't rocket science, people. ;O)-
Remember when all we had was letters to communicate? We had a well rounded, very detailed method of communication. Then came along the 'Telegram.' We had to invent a very simple method of signifying each individual character. Processing those signals meant writing them down and deciphering them. With the above idea, we can both send a codec and a corresponding message by reconfiguring to/from a predetermined gauge. Make sense now? Going low tech is the answer for a high tech puzzle.
this got me thinking... Question: could we tell if there is dark energy, or if we (with our local group) have crossed an event horizon of some gigantic cosmic black hole? And would there be any difference?
FTL is possible... if the concept allowed light to be propelled faster... When the concept is explored, 'they' expect light to move faster of its own accord, rather than be propelled.... Of course, most would question how light could be propelled faster and, assume it cannot. Then, when shown how it can be, the claim is 'light is not moving faster"... Though photons can be caused to move a greater distance in less time than they would of their own accord..... Its kinda like saying people cannot move faster than they can run, though people can get in a car and move much faster.... Basically science says people cannot move faster, given the same criteria for motion.
My scientific theory of the universe. If you took a spaceship to the edge of the universe and then went another billion times more distance than you just went. Now if you turn around to see where you came from it would look like a bolt of lightning.
Been watching you for two years. This is a mind blowing interview for me!! By far the best I have seen. INTERVIEW CALTECH ON THEIR TRILLION FRAMS PER SECOND CAMERA TO WATCH LIGHT MOVE!!
On the topic - did you know arxiv has a black list? And the moment you touch the problem of aliens, faster than light stuff and probably a lot of others, you get "moderated". I.e. blocked. We got blocked on a tachyon paper, that got published in a journal (so far no one objected to it), yet, it wasn't good enough for arXiv? I was really shocked for find it out. So yeah, arxiv is not a safe space for ideas. And this is not how science work, you are supposed to be able to explore weird ideas, otherwise, what's the point? Just pretending to be chatGPT, infinitely recycling old ideas? And yeah, I forgot to say - a great interview, I really enjoyed listening to it (while doing other stuff, obviously).
The wavefront isn't ftl, its how the illimunation front is landing on something its illuminating. Its a bit of a difficult concept to get a hold of without a visualuzation.
I would be all in on the journal. Ive taken some time off work recently and would be intersted in sifting through proposals for something worthwhile. I'm doing something similar just to entertain myself as is.
So instead of the Big Bang, now we have the Big Break on the Universal pool table. How about the Big Shuffle and Cut of the Universal deck of cards? Or the Big Kickoff or Big Opening Pitch or...
19:40 What these events all have in common is coincidence. Coincident events (from a shadow, laser pointer, fissure in a piece of paper, or illumination front) aren't objects. They're not "things". It's true that "nothing can travel faster than light" because these counter-examples fail to meet the criteria of beings "things" at all. Some have fictive concepts that track the coincident events like the shape of the shadow and the geometrical ray of a laser pointers. Others have an explicative cause that can be given a noun referent in English like "the cut in the paper" or "the illumination front". But these concepts represent events, not objects. Christmas isn't an object that exists in reality. It's an event that has a proper noun referent.
In short: No energy or information can be faster than light. ;)
@@yourguard4 In short: Dr. Nemiroff made a mistake due to philosophical confusion. This can happen when scientists step outside their field of expertise.
Nothing cant cros the speed of light nathing !!! Only the stupidity of people like the alcubiere or this video here 😂😂😂😂😂
Shadows are a virtual phenomenon. There's no c limit on virtuality.
um.. actually there is. Shadows is just the lack of light caused by an obstruction.
So it is STILL no faster than light.
@@jessepollard7132 r/confidentlyincorrect virtual projections (a displayed projection) may appear to move faster than light (whithin the projection), but that is because they are a stream of parallel particles, that all move at light speed, that give the illusion of not being parallel, and that have some virtual synchronization for apparent movement between them.
both of you are wrong, kind of, shadows dont have a limit, because they do not exist, you cant put a limit or speed on something that doesnt exist, so ''there's no limit' is wrong because there is nothing to even define
“We wanted it to be a smart internet” Well… we all know how that turned out! XD
You know what they say about time machines. They don’t make them like they’re gonna.
Imagine into the future it will look even more unlikely time machines will ever become a possibility and everyone who even thinks about trying will be stopped by the argument, people would have come from the future with time machines already if it would be possible. But the only reason why no one from the future ever came was because no one in the past ever considered the idea worth enough committing his whole life to it :D
Until some crazy guy loses his wife and refuses to accept it until he builds and actual time machine but instead of sharing his idea with humanity he loses himself and his invention in time. Millions of years in the future, where it's out of reach for humanity. Well done, crazy scientist, well done...
that was so much more errrr less? funnny tomorrrow err yesterday ! ..?
I feel like describing the level-arm of a stream of photons moving faster than the speed of light is nothing more than a pedantic gotcha. Nothing is moving faster than light here, there's just a false perception of a collection of things that we categorize as a single "thing" that is moving faster than light. This is just a semantic construct that people are going to take as an example of an exception which they'll likely try to apply to things where the rules actually apply. Nothing travels faster than light. If you think you have something that moves faster than the speed of light, it isn't a real thing, it's some sort of semantic construct that someone is trying to muddy the water.
Well if you actually read the book, he goes into the differentiation between things that happen in objective reality and things that happen to a subjective observer, explaining pretty much what you were trying to say there but in no way tries to "muddy the waters" as you put it because he's very clearly not being disingenuous in his approach.
Question: if we can move faster than light, then i can easily find my car key by travelling very fast, passing the light from when i came home, turn around and take a picture of that light for then to easily retrieve my keys?
Hay! Why do i need a car if i can move faster than my car can move?
😂😂
Speed of light is always constant no matter how fast you move. That's an experimental fact.
If you go that fast you may get home before you lost your keys and voilà! Problem eliminated! :D
@@chris-terrell-liveactive - but I do not know I have lost something before I need it? When I start looking for my car keys the light from when I came home must be out at jupiter or pluto?
@doncarlodivargas5497 we shall call you the "Flash" and stop losing your keys! 😂 I wonder if that physicist went after Frasier for having "wild" thoughts or dream scenarios. I reckon you know who I am referring to. 😉 Have a great day internet stranger! 🍻🌎♥️🎶🕺
P.S. - Why'd you go for a run to Pluto or Jupiter without me? I told you not to take the spaceship for a ride without offering a chance to get some good galactic pizza or tacos! Hmph! 😊 I'll get the food, but you're covering gas this time. Oh yeah, gas probably wouldn't be used even if just more of using a familiar term, but not all can grasp things like that. 😮
Well shadows can't move faster than the speed of light, because a shadow is not an entity. If an area is already in light and you start sweeping away the light, it's the speed of photons which dictate the absence of light (shadow). If you rotate the source of light around the speed of light, photons will be lagging behind one another, like water lagging behind when you swing a water hose with water running. The absence of photons will be the shadow. It's not breaking any laws of physics. Unlike photons, shadow is not an object, weightless or otherwise. So the concept itself doesn't make any sense.
Thenk you! This is pseudoscience just-asking-questions pique-your-interest bull. Shameful for a popular science channel
It makes sense to intelligent people since the speed a shadow is moving is dependent on 2 factors and not only one. One factor is the speed of the object, which is throwing the shadow. The other is the light source itself. If an object is moving at the speed of light and the light source is moving by 1 mile per hour, the shadow of the object will move 1 mile per hour faster than light speed. Because of the very reason that a shadow is not matter and there is nothing speaking against it accelerating above the speed of light. You're welcome bro. Next time read a wiki article before looking stupid online.
@@NoqtisYou misunderstood their comment. They know shadows can appear to move faster than light, they broke down an example of that happening in their comment. Their point was it is not real example of a thing moving faster than light, because shadows are not things. A shadow is not an object, it's an event. A shadow sweeping across a distant wall can appear to move at whatever speed it likes, because it's not an object with a velocity, it's simply the process of photons not hitting spots on the wall. Nothing in the system is actually moving faster than light, because the things producing the event, the photons, are all still moving at c. To quote wikipedia since you mentioned it
"In the following examples, certain influences may appear to travel faster than light, but they do not convey energy or information faster than light, so they do not violate special relativity.
Light spots and shadows
If a laser beam is swept across a distant object, the spot of laser light can easily be made to move across the object at a speed greater than c.[6] Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move across the object faster than c.[6] In neither case does the light travel from the source to the object faster than c, nor does any information travel faster than light.[6][7][8]"
It's the same as how you can have a row of lights and by turning the lights on and off in sequence you can make a dot appear to move. You can make that dot appear to move at whatever speed you like, even faster than light, because nothing here is actually moving. The lamps are stationary, the photons emited by the lamps are moving at c. The only thing that appears to move ftl is the dot, but the dot isn't really moving, it's just an illusion produced by the lamps turning on and off.
A shadow is no different. A shadow on a wall is just where a patch of the wall isn't being hit with light. It can appear to move by having new parts of the wall go dark, just like how you can make the dot appear to move by having new lamps light up. And just like in that case, you can make a shadow appear to move with whatever speed you like, because it's not an object, and it's motion is an illusion. So it's only an example of something moving faster than light if you have a really loose definition of "thing" and "move".
Technically a shadow (0:15), simply being the absence of light, can only move at the speed at which light retreats or vacates the space in which it previously occupied. So this statement cannot be true for light in any medium.
On the other hand, humankind is likely at a level of math somewhere between kindergarten and grade 2 comparatively to the math involved in the entire universe. It would be typically (and arrogantly) human to think we really know anything at all.
It's perplexing how universities inhibit the quest for knowledge. They should be a place were the pursuit of knowledge should thrive. Albert Einstein was working as a patient clerk when he wrote his papers on Reality and General Reality. These papers were revolutionary and probably wouldn't have been accepted or supported by any universities at the time.
If we could measure spin without causing collapse (measure without measuring) then we could use the measurements themselves as a form of communication. This particle was measured so it equals one. This particle hasn't been measured/collapsed so is equals zero. Drawback if possible would be that you have to start out with one-time use array/collection of entangled particles and then separate them at the needed distance without losing coherence. Quantum computing has a hard time keeping particles entangled. But, we could have 1024 entangled particles on a Satellite Probe and the other 1024 on Earth and you could receive a one-time message of one kilobit at FTL.
First of all the expression is 'nothing can go faster than the (so called) speed of light, in a vacuum.' A shadow is not a thing, in and of it's self. A shadow is the relative absence of the phenomenon you're comparing it to, being impeded by something, which contextually means, that a shadow quite literally is 'nothing', So, the statement in that regard, holds perfectly true enough'. Speaking of 'impedance', is light not electromagnetic phenomena like the rest of the Electromagnetic Spectrum? If the so called speed of light is constant and consistent in a vacuum, and only apparently 'slows down' when impeded by something with mass, but returns to it's so called 'speed' once it returns to a vacuum, then we're not really taking about 'speed', and speed of light is a misnomer; Because when an object is traveling at a known speed in a vacuum, and is impeded or interfered with momentarily, it does not simply return to the same speed in a vacuum, without being acted upon by another force to return the energy or speed it's lost. So, light doesn't actually have a 'speed' , per say, but rather what you're measuring, or actually referring to is 'rate of induction' because you can't make light go 'faster', than it inherently does in a vacuum, by simply putting more energy into it. Light from a super nova even doesn't move through the vacuum of space any faster than light from a flashlight in space, in spite of the almost incomprehensible energy disparity. So, basically the 'speed of light' , is a more nonsensical combination of words than, 'my pet bowl of oatmeal, needs a rabies booster, in honor of your mother'. 🤷♂
You and Dr. Nemiroff should absolutely start that journal!
APOD is such a great institution. Been following it since I was in college, when they were still posting etchings of the most recent terrifying celestial potents.
I remember visiting apod with Mosaic
I remember searching for it with Alta Vista.
He plays very loose with the word "move". He describes "things" "moving" faster than light. I think it would be more accurate to say "effects are propagating faster than light". A shadow is not a thing, it is an effect, and it does not "move" it propagates.
I think one good way of thinking about it is this. There are two atoms next to one another, two photons are shot at those two atoms, one aimed at each, but they are not shot at exactly the same time, one is ever so slightly behind the other such that the time difference in time between the first atom getting hit by the photon, and the second atom getting hit by the proton makes the "effect" of illumination happen faster than light, but no "thing" is actually "moving" faster than light, he is just playing very loose with he definition of "thing" and "move". Same with scizors, a "cut" is not a thing, two atoms being separated is an effect, and that effect does not "move", it propagates.
Two unrelated observations:
1. How do shadoe bannnd people get their good ideas heard
2. Speaking to the RNA issue, yes, they made advances in knowledge, but have we advanced in our knowledge of something that, because we're so new at this, is dangerous because of our limited knowledge? Drs. McCullough, Malone and Cole speak to this in alternative venues. Also, society depends on good behavior. Knowledge of fire is good and useful but bad people can weaponize it (arson). Ditto for RNA, which in the wrong hands can be made to be more dangerous to us, ultimately even more so than nuclear weapons. Maybe the motivation to do this is simply to make huge amounts of money...
@Fraser Cain The best and more intuitive way I have seen Entanglement explained that makes sense is picture a ripple in a pond from a stone radiating out. Now if two people stood on opposite shores and took measurements of those ripples no matter how far apart those two observers are they can instantly know the state of the wave their colleague measured despite the space between them being longer than what light would take. Its akin the illumination front Dr Nemiroff spoke of. Thinking of it this way makes it clear why we can not send information faster than light and its because the information was contained in the rock which hit the pond initially and not where the observers sit. It takes a finite amount of time to make it to each shore and when measured the time it took to get to each will be less than light speed.
Now, with that being said there was a relatively recent experiment with beam splitters and FFT where they vibrated the mirrors to fully know which light past as they could detect the specific mirrors frequency in the output and they found after stringing multiple beam splitters and using differing frequency for each path that the only logical conclusion we could come to in specific cases is that the light started at the end point and worked back while ALSO taking the forward path at the same time. This starts to lean us towards a type of retro-causality I believe Fermi discussed a while back then dropped in which light is a standing wave going forwards and backwards in time. It also gives weight to the Bloc universe which states its all a huge static interference pattern yet we are moving through that in a sheet of time causing us to see a holographic representation in 3D of that 4D universe. This whole paragraph is hypothesis of various people but they all have reasoning but no solid proof however I tend to lead to it as my weightiest hypothesis for a Theory of Everything type of understanding.
PS: If it exist I will no doubt publish my ground breaking Theory of Everything in your Science Journal :D . That is only semi a joke as well cuz I have been working on something for few years which not only is mostly consistent with General Relativity but also QM via the use of an Absolute frame of reference as a whole, Time as a physical dimension with Mass energy resisting the flow towards a specific place such that when an object moves the speed of light they are actually stationary for the first time ever against the universal reference frame explain in part why C is the limit. Idk, I would go into more detail but A: its all likely wrong and B: Would suck if its not and someone else gets the ideas and i wasted all this time. That being said though. If its wrong its kinda fully how many of the various Constants of Nature just magically appear out of our universes dimensions and properties even though modern physics holds these values to be dimensionless. If we find their dimensions should they have them we can make them vanish thus simplifying tons of work.
17:20 Shadows don't travel faster than light. Shadows are defined by an absence of light, and information about that absence propagates as the lack of arriving photons that were blocked. The hypothetical, blocked photon paths travel at the speed of light by definition. With a laser pointer, the direction indicated by the geometrical ray of the pointer may intersect with one particular star in the sky, and then a few seconds later, it may intersect with another star 100 light years away from the first. But the photons from the laser pointer don't arrive for decades. Nothing travelled faster than light besides a fictive geometrical ray. Fictive things aren't real. It's banal to say fictive things can travel faster than light.
I just learned about 33 Polyhymnia - the asteroid with the "mysteriously dense" composition. How could we get something there to explore, and what do you think is going on?
Some of the asteroids in the study had low precision estimates of their mass, and so any with unrealistic densities were ignored. The study tried to estimate the gravitational influence of asteroids on each other, so any imprecise knowledge of their orbits or masses would lead to some with unrealistic masses or densities.
1:11:42 I'd read that journal, I even have an idea for an article, dark energy explained by putting gravity onto minkowski space, kind of.
Tomorrow everyone knows that stuff can move faster than light and laugh thinking about the stupid people that thought light speed was a limit
If that were true those people would have already come back and told us about it.
@@rensin2 That will be figured out the day or two afterwards! I just hope we keep learning and figuring this stuff out, it's awesome! Have a wonderful day everyone! 🍻🌎❤️🎶🕺🏻🔭🚀🛰️
@@rensin2 - nobody travel back to a time when people was stupid and ignorant
@@rensin2 Oh, I LOVE multiple choice!
a- Why bother? We are still too stupid.
b- They're really nasty- quite logical, if they're roughly the same over-brained chimps as us.
bsub1- They enjoy the joke, why ruin it?
bsub2- They're here and staying quiet because they enjoy watching the suffering.
@@dmitryshusterman9494 - yes, I am unfortunately a little simple, sorry
Great interview!
And man there really needs to be a cool science ideas journal, that would be so cool!
I once asked a Canadian science journalist a question about whether anything can travel faster than the speed of light. He said no!
Well, that's certainly definitive. A Canadian science journalist would certainly know the answer to any science question.
Well it's pretty much a trick question. A shadow is not made of matter, just like an illumination front. It's just a projection and the way we perceive it because of our angle or view. But it's actually just different photons hitting the target next to another. It is still my understanding that no matter moves faster than the speed of light in space, but space can expand faster than the speed of light.
If it was a Yes or No question, I'd also say No. Just as I cannot run faster than a race car at top speed, even if I'm running on a treadmill pushing me forward at 400kmh in a relay race where I just have to shine a laser to one of my clone just before the finish line to tell them to cross it.
Abandoning Time correlated with space time and returning to visual epochs and scale as we leave abstract paper behind puts an emphasis on image learning.
Our youth are not thinking like factory worker children of some industrial revolutionary mindset
So fascinating that this stuff is actually useful from about 30 min
You should try to see if you can interview a referee for one of the science journals, Fraser. I'd be interested to know more about that process.
When two black holes collide with one another, do they stay as two separate continuous objects and then merge into a larger black hole? OR.. As the smaller black hole begins to near way more massive black hole does the roche limit effect the smaller black hole in any way, so that the smaller black hole is no longer a single continuous object and instead turns into a stream of particles/energy (spaghettifaction) as it almost gets sucked into the larger black hole?
That depends on whether the singularity (or the accumulated matter/energy of which its made) is able to BE spaghettified, or not! It's a fascinating image, but I don't know if we have a good handle on the physics of all of that. For instance, if spaghettification of BHs were a thing, then there probably wouldn't be an actual "Final Parsec Problem" relating to the merger of supermassive BHs. Trouble is, our LIGO measurements of smaller BH mergers seems to indicate they happen more or less instantly, which wouldn't happen if they were stretched or spread out by gravity. That would seem to show that spaghettification is NOT a thing BHs do - at least the stellar mass ones - but I doubt there are strong limits on that data yet.
Thanks for reminding me about APOD, was a daily favorite of mine long ago
Nice work, as always. I remember using Astronomy Picture of the Day, back in the day.
A great episode! Blurring the lines between "things" (light, spaceships, galaxies) and "no-thing" (shadows, perceptions, illumination) in a playful way that can stimulate new perspectives. This is where I agree strongly with the idea of a journal for speculative scientific enquiry, already known to produce results but unpredictable, hence funds are withheld. This would be a really beneficial project, sadly I am less wealthy (financially) than Mr Musk, or I would let you have a few $M to play with!
If things falling into a black hole will eventually look to an outside observer as if they have frozen in time then why do we not simply see a black just packed full of stuff that looks to be frozen in time? Yes I am aware of how bad I suck at phrasing a question, I'm ignorant but I'm at least trying to correct that issue
Because the wavelengths of the things falling in stretch out until they fade away from our perspective.
@Justua Takit thank you for asking this question & @frasercain thank you for that simple explanation, I've just learned something that I did not know.
The best way ive found to demonstrate that the old nothing is faster than light depends on circumstance, is cherenkov (spelling) radiation. Massless stuff in vacuum is the fastest bits in space, except for space itself. After i get understanding from showing the blue glow of a reactor i immediately shatter it with the "space can move faster than light" and i usually get 2 or 3 that understand all the way through
Entanglement is pretty underwhelming if you forget why hidden variable theories are rejected; it's kind of mundane for two observers to make opposite observations if the results were determined in advance at the particle source. Hidden variables ought to be the focus of any public presentation of entanglement.
24:43 - How can we loose the ability to communicate with the Andromeda galaxy? I always thought (and still think) that it is moving towards us and will eventually collide with the Milky Way. Is there new science that disproved that?
No, when Andromeda does collide with us, it'll become apart of us, so we'll still be able to communicate.
The way i understand quantum entanglement : "Take a pair of sock, as soon as i wear the first sock on my right foot, the other one instantaneously become the left sock (wherever it is in the universe)"
Sorry Doc Rob, no none of your examples ‘travel faster than light,’ not shadows, not laser pointers, not scissors, not cameras. I believe these have been proven to obey the law but someone correct me if I’m wrong
The only thing I’m aware of that ‘travels faster than light’ are galaxies far away due to expansion of the universe
The point about this conversation is just that things can appear to move faster than the speed of light, but they're not actually moving faster than the speed of light
Great interview, he’s enthusiastic and enjoyable. 👍
Gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong, light cannot escape. Gravity is therefore accelerating light towards the core at light speed, any object accelerating towards core will therefore accelerate to multiple times light speed.
I'd love to better understand the difference between the event horizon of a black hole and the effect described around 24:25 is an event horizon stars that have already fallen in? Or are these two different things entirely. Loved this interview! Please make this journal!
As I understand it, the EH is where all of the swallowed stars are falling in, but since the rate of time there is zero, there can be no past tense there, only out here where time is passing (at almost the speed of light?). Consequently, they are not falling at all, except relative to the 'growing' Schwarzschild radius (due to the accumulating mass & gravity).
The event horizon, is the “distance” from the singularity, that light can never pass (if that light is emitted from within that region).
So if you and a friend were floating around a black hole, and your friend got too close… and your friend is pointing a laser at you…
When your friend passes the event horizon (falls within that distance from the singularity), no more light from the laser can ever reach you… and you will only be seeing light that was emitted OUTSIDE of that distance, before your friend crossed that “horizon”… and that light will continually be redshifted (stretched), so, rather than “blinking out”, it slowly fades.
Perhaps we need a "salon des refuses" for science?
The term "salon des refusés" refers to an art exhibition in France in the 19th century. It was initiated by Napoleon III in 1863 as a response to the controversy surrounding the selection of artworks for the official Salon of the French Academy. Many avant-garde and unconventional artworks that were rejected by the Academy were displayed at the Salon des Refusés. This exhibition is significant because it provided exposure to artists who were often marginalized or considered radical at the time.
Frasers channel has credibility at this point. It was alluded to in this interview actually. If fraser were to entertain crackpots or grifters for interviews that credibility would disappear shockingly fast. Fraser will not do it.
In a very real sense fraser IS a journal, and fraser keeps these "wonderful new speculative ideas" down too. Thats a good thing though. Uneducated crackpots and grifters need to be kept down and when an einstein or newton comes along they will do just fine.
@@deltalima6703 I am not asking him to change his sceptical approach, only flag such things that sometimes come from legitimate corners as belonging to this speculative group, as he already does. See my other reply
I think I saw some videos of well respected youtubers as Kurzgesagt where they say in far future you won't be able to see distant galaxies because they went out of view and we will think our galaxy is the only one in the universe. How come Nemiroff says thay will never disappear? I am confused
There will be ghostly light falling over the particle horizon with each new passing day, but that won't last forever.
Thanks for asking/following up with the FTL communication question!
Minor correction: the images we got of the black holes aren't of the event horizon. They show the shadow of the black hole, which has a diameter much larger than the event horizon
44:00 the quantum entanglement experiments, how robust are the results?
_Extremely_ robust. Didn't you notice that a Nobel prize was already awarded for these type of experiments? Those prizes aren't given out lightly.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I was thinking in terms of, how often do the pairs form and how easy is it to disturb the pairing.
Like is it a certainty or something that happens 3 out of 5 or 10 times.
@@kylegoldston That depends on the details of the experiment. E. g. how the pairs are formed, what particles are used, what environment is used (e. g. how good is the vacuum used in the experiment) etc.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Ah, see, that's my point. I'm wondering if it's a certainty or a statistical probability that a pair forms.
If you need 2,000 atoms to get 2 or 3 pairs, is that really the same as 6 atoms in = 3 pairs output?
I don't think so, but what do I know.
I do have some theories on the subject however.
@@kylegoldston As I said: The probability that a pair forms depends on the experiment. As far as I know, there are types of experiments where its essentially a certainty.
What "theories" do you have, and on what knowledge and experience do you base these "theories"?
Do you even know what "entangled state" actually _means_ in quantum physics, how that term is actually defined?
The laser pointer example that in an accelerating, expanding universe, we and and another galaxy each move in opposite directions at more than 1/2 C, easy to comprehend that light will never return. Does not answer whether each galaxy will ever move more than the speed of light? Time is infinite? FYI, Doppler example is full of Survivorship Bias as the why that happens.
@29:28 The Picard Maneuver!
Robert is such a fun guy to listen and learn from!great show!
Good to see you doing this interview with Bob (his book is decent too). If i could tell you the number of times i've tried to explain the "c" is about infornstion, not a speed limit... And the number of people arguing until they're blue in the face because they've been reared on the trope "Speed of light is the cosmic speed limit for evrrthing in existsnce and nothing ever can ever go faster ever!". Now i can just tell them to read Bob's book and get back to me. 😂
I think that a cool Journal idea. I for one would read it :-) . Would be interested in donating time to help make it happen.
What game or show was spaceship scenes from??
I came to know about APOD in 2007 when I was in college. Still following it. So glad to see him.
Hi Fraser, have a question - how can there be an infinite universe if everything started at a singularity and has been expanding at some finite speed since then? Unless the Big Bang banged "into" something that already existed?
20:10 This seems to demonstrate that RPM is not relative. It's absolute. This is also supported by centrifugal force. A flat earther tried to strawman RPM as "relative" and I used CF to debunk him. 😅
In principle, if you were.
Pushing a light sail. Would you be able to propel that faster than the speed of light by strobeing your light sorce?
I go to Apod all the time. Great work!
isn't the scissors paradox about scissors without a paper? would you please clarify this in your q&a show? How can you move the molecules of paper faster than light when they have mass?
Molecules don't move faster than light(the molecules move sideways from the blades) , the cutting travel faster than light, that effect travel in straight line from the base of scissors to the tip, cutting isn't made from atoms or molecules , it's something that happens to the paper. Also cutting don't originate from the base of scissor, his origin is from the two separate blades that are coming together and also each move slower than the speed of light.
Would there be a sound that corresponds with the speed of light? I know sound needs an atmosphere (or matter period?) to exist, but if you moved a particle or wave through an atmosphere at 300k km/sec.. what would it "sound" like...?
Absolutely love this interview.. I think this is my third time listening..
I guess I have heard "audio" of the CMB.. is that it? is there any sound to light in general, let alone different wavelengths? Does red shift really work like the doppler effect, modulating pitch based on relative speed?? All the best..
Veritasium says our visible universe is getting larger, because space is expanding, and things which are currently outside of our visible universe will later become visible.
Why Jupiter moons does not have atmosfere?
Yes! Make that journal happen! Call it “Journal of the Future,” or “Fringe,” or “Journal of New.” If I had a several million dollars, I’d cut a check to start publishing that sight-unseen.
Do you have an opinion on the recnt UAP hearing?
Depends on if light is going through a vacuum though. There are some mediums light can go through, but relative to what is normally considered it's really slow.
There are two places in the universe, light can not enter. Black holes and asses. Stop trying perverts!
Hey buddy can you do a video on intergalactic modems??
Very interesting. Thanks for the video. I love these interviews.
re 0:02 Is it a 'thing' if it has no mass? Is a shadow a thing? Does a shadow have volume (3 dimensions), or is it only the surface(s) where that light does not fall? How can a shadow move faster than the light that it does not contain? ;-) (I'm sure this is not an original idea.)
re 47:27 'the universe is growing in a fraction of a second' but relative to our rate of time, that fraction of a second could have taken trillions of years, due to the contemporary mass density & rate of time.
Great meta-science discussion too!
"Is it a 'thing' if it has no mass?"
Why not? Are photons not things for you?
"Does a shadow have volume (3 dimensions), or is it only the surface(s) where that light does not fall?"
Shadows are always regions in space, not only surfaces, so yes, they have volume.
" but relative to our rate of time, that fraction of a second could have taken trillions of years, due to the contemporary mass density & rate of time"
Mass density on its own doesn't influence the rate of time, you need a specific mass _distribution_ for that.
@you2tooyou2too Energy/mass is related to time. The answer for your first question is no, second question is no also.
If a shadow was traced out by a single photon it could not move faster than light. It is not though it is traced by numerous photons, and these have seperate speeds for different aspects of them, some of which act as though they are faster than light because they are interference patterns.
The underlying light that creates these interference patterns still travels at c. The peaks can travel faster than c but they are created from waves that went before. Its subtle, the speaker (robert) mentioned it when he was talking about phase velocity, but there is a subtlety there that even he is missing.
You dont really understand it until you learn how it is that light slows down in glass.
TLDR: yes shadows move faster than the light they dont contain, no shadows are not really a thing. Photons are a thing since they contain energy which is mass.
Your channel is amazing!
Would it be possible to spin a buckyball using some kind of language system based on a sphere so that the quantumly entangled buckyball on the other end with spin in the same direction indicating the desired character?
Sadly no. The spin if a subatomic particle is an intrinsic angular momentum but isn't rotation in a conventional sense. When you split a particle in two this angular momentum is conserved so if you split a particle with spin 0 the spins of the new particles must be opposite. Problem is in quantum physics the particles don't have a set spin until measured. Changing the spin of one particle after the fact won't change the other.
Everything beyond redshift of 1.4 is moving away from us faster than light (according to standard model LCDM), not sure what he means redshift of 3 refers to but it seems to be if our universe had no dark energy.
Great interview!
Random unrelated thought for the questions show:
Is or was there ever any plan or proposal for a „reduced gravity habitat“ in orbit for mice or something? I imagine a rotating hamster cage module to simulate moon or Mars gravity rodent scale? Then we at least know how they handle 1/6G for a few months, maybe even reproducing. If not for mice maybe at least for insects or smaller critters to reduce the radius.
Or the other way around: has anybody ever tried having any living thing endure higher gravity in centrifuges for extended periods?
You ought to call that journal, something like, "Outsider Science", or "Scientific Outsider", in the way, non-academically associated art, is generally called outsider art.
In HUT (Holographic Universe Theory) inspired by David Bohm's concept to explain FTL "communication" between entangled particles, describes a "Higher reality" in the universe where ALL particles exist but without space dimensions. Our own "Lower reality" "3D" universe is but a shared "illusion of our perception" of certain wave attributes of the particle that we SEE as coordinates in a 3D universe. Thus entangled particles are right "next to each other" in the REAL Higher Reality but may be light years "apart" in our 3D Lower reality. They thus appear to "communicate" FTL in our "lower reality.
APOD..my fav for years. Thank you for doing this so long
If things can move away from you faster than the speed of light can things also move toward you faster than light?
They can if you are located inside a black hole.
When the internet was actually scientific and not about opinions.
I don't understand how most of these phenomena can move faster than light. Maybe if I bought his book I could. A paper cut is a very small physical thing, constrained by mechanics. The shadow of the sun on Earth appears to move at a small distance. If you turn your head, you only get a weak, unconvincing illusion of movement. A moving laser (or very distant shadow) is more like a signal being turned on and off instead of "moved". Distant, receding astronomical objects, yes.
Pendant point about 25m in; Andromeda is blue shifted
You can utilize a predetermined gauge by "observing" in determined patterns.
That's how you communicate via quantum entanglement.
And to troubleshoot anomalist errors, you overwhelm each character by multiplied force.
This can be done through Quantum Computers by utilizing calculations as individual characters in a predetermined "gauge" mentioned above.
This isn't rocket science, people. ;O)-
Remember when all we had was letters to communicate?
We had a well rounded, very detailed method of communication.
Then came along the 'Telegram.'
We had to invent a very simple method of signifying each individual character.
Processing those signals meant writing them down and deciphering them.
With the above idea, we can both send a codec and a corresponding message by reconfiguring to/from a predetermined gauge.
Make sense now? Going low tech is the answer for a high tech puzzle.
this got me thinking... Question: could we tell if there is dark energy, or if we (with our local group) have crossed an event horizon of some gigantic cosmic black hole? And would there be any difference?
How fast is the shadow?
Depends how long it is, which depends on the angles involved.
Shadow is not a thing, so it has no speed.
FTL is possible... if the concept allowed light to be propelled faster... When the concept is explored, 'they' expect light to move faster of its own accord, rather than be propelled.... Of course, most would question how light could be propelled faster and, assume it cannot. Then, when shown how it can be, the claim is 'light is not moving faster"... Though photons can be caused to move a greater distance in less time than they would of their own accord..... Its kinda like saying people cannot move faster than they can run, though people can get in a car and move much faster.... Basically science says people cannot move faster, given the same criteria for motion.
how come shadow is faster than light its basically 1 idea slower just impossible to detect it.
❓if a meteors orbit can be affected by something as little as the yarkovsky effect did the bump from Osiris Rex change Bennu’s orbit at all?
Only very slightly, but yes.
My scientific theory of the universe.
If you took a spaceship to the edge of the universe and then went another billion times more distance than you just went. Now if you turn around to see where you came from it would look like a bolt of lightning.
Been watching you for two years. This is a mind blowing interview for me!! By far the best I have seen. INTERVIEW CALTECH ON THEIR TRILLION FRAMS PER SECOND CAMERA TO WATCH LIGHT MOVE!!
A young lady named Bright
Could travel much faster than light
She set off one day
In a relative way
And arrived the preceding night
Seems like the criteria for looking into "crazy ideas" would be risk (or cost) vs reward and also testability. Although coolness might be good too!
I can't wait for your journal of interesting but too far-out ideas!
Mind bending. Thanks for sharing.
On the topic - did you know arxiv has a black list? And the moment you touch the problem of aliens, faster than light stuff and probably a lot of others, you get "moderated". I.e. blocked. We got blocked on a tachyon paper, that got published in a journal (so far no one objected to it), yet, it wasn't good enough for arXiv? I was really shocked for find it out. So yeah, arxiv is not a safe space for ideas. And this is not how science work, you are supposed to be able to explore weird ideas, otherwise, what's the point? Just pretending to be chatGPT, infinitely recycling old ideas? And yeah, I forgot to say - a great interview, I really enjoyed listening to it (while doing other stuff, obviously).
Love your work.
So next candidate, for when you are going to do another round for the best JWST image of the next year.
I've been visiting APOD daily (pretty much) for over a decade.
Maybe a shadow could be a way of communicating
This was awesome! Thank you. Question: Would an FTL wavefront bounce off a front surface mirror and continue at FTL?
The wavefront isn't ftl, its how the illimunation front is landing on something its illuminating. Its a bit of a difficult concept to get a hold of without a visualuzation.
@@benjaminbeard3736 Thank you for answering! I'll dig deeper into this and find a visualization, and maybe rewatch the video at 0.75x, lol.
@@waynegnarlie1 you're welcome. Im glad you didn't take it the wrong way. It took me a minute to get what he was talking about.
@@benjaminbeard3736 ✊
The red border on the bottom of the thumbnail almost made me miss this one, thought I’d already listened! Glad I didn’t, thanks for the vid!
I would be all in on the journal. Ive taken some time off work recently and would be intersted in sifting through proposals for something worthwhile. I'm doing something similar just to entertain myself as is.
But…a shadow is not a thing, it’s the absence of a thing. Like cold….not really a thing.
So instead of the Big Bang, now we have the Big Break on the Universal pool table. How about the Big Shuffle and Cut of the Universal deck of cards? Or the Big Kickoff or Big Opening Pitch or...
Is not Andromada galaxy gravitationally bound. in fact, we are due the merge with Andromeda.
Love the thumbnail. Nostalgia
That's all Anton's work
Relativistic image doubling sounds alot like when the flash creates time remnants