Sure for as we understand physics now. This idea that we got it figured out this time baffles me. Yes its proven as we understand it, that does not mean someone can't figure out something we never even conceived of that violates/circumvents the laws as we currently know them. It has been done many times in the past before, why do we assume we are so smart that we got it down pat this time.

Nah. Everyone knows we know everything we'll ever know now. Just like we knew no one would ever break the sound barrier. Just like we knew phlogiston was what made fire. Just like we knew the universe revolved around the earth. Just like we knew the world was flat. Oh wait, do those things sound silly to us today? Guess what. Once upon a time they sounded as accurate and unquestionable as our current understanding of science today. Breakthroughs and discoveries are called breakthroughs and discoveries for a reason.

Its fiction. Its supposed to be speculative.

hi hi

I think some people are confusing superstition with science. The concept that the universe rotated around the Earth was not a scientific theory, and was certainly never proven by experiment. The sound barrier was never a scientific theory that was thought to be unbreakable. Bullets were breaking the sound barrier since gunpowder was invented (part of the reason those early test planes were shaped like bullets) I mean whips have been doing it since the invention of whips.

When getting into psudo-science magic relating to quantum mechanics, it is important to remember the Correspondence Principle. Which, in a nutshell states that: "Any new theory must give the same answers as the old theory where the old theory has been confirmed by experiment."

When Einstein came up with relativity, objects didn't start falling up. Relativity gave the same answers that Newton did except in extreme situations like near the speed of light or calculating Mercury's orbit.

Just because this is highly appropriate for this thread:

http://www.365tomorrows.com/03/05/hold-on-to-something/

But I thought that was the problem Einstein had with entanglement, in the EPR thought experiments, action at a distance, and FTL information exchange.

Then again, I'm definitely in the "knows enough to know that he doesn't know enough category" so please enlighten me.

the nice thing about quantum data transfer is that its complicated enough that you wont bump into it at everyday systems, but you can still throw it in as a curve-ball if some uppity hacker thinks he can crack a major bank and wire some millions to his offshore account.

Honestly, physicists would get a wider (not better) audience if the just took half of the unobservable quantum baloney and explained it the way they should.

I'm starting to see the wisdom in just saying a wizard did it or god said you can't go that fast...

As far as the references to alchemy and the shape of earth... those were never theories, but hypothesis. When a hypothesis is tested and it is shown over many experiments that a mathematical model really is a mathematical model of the world and not just sillyness it gets to be a theory (or law after people get tired of trying to disprove it and it has good physics politics). If a mathematical model will predict what happens it can't be dis proven only shown to not be the whole story.

Are you suggesting the speed of light might be increased one day?

hi hi

In the strictest sense, physics does not tell us that going faster than light is impossible. (although it is impossible to achieve via reaction acceleration) What it does say is that going faster than light will necessarily involve time travel into the past. This is all well and dandy for quantum mechanics, but once you start transmitting data faster than light, you break causality.

Tachyons. That is all.

I wonder if you could use this as a fool proof alarm, as in if there is an observer it changes the quantum state and sounds an alarm? The problem is figuring out how to observe a change without observing the current state.

Eggy

Unless causality runs in reverse. (It could)

hi hi


- emphasis mine

- that is all.

They do, however, fit into the current mathematical models of The Universe As We Know It. Meaning that a particle that cannot travel slower than the speed of light doesn't violate causality.

hi hi

Exactly, we wouldn't be able to interact with them in an information transferring manner, whether or not we could even perceive their existence. As they say, if your theory cannot predict future events, it isn't a very good theory.

Correct, but it doesn't mean they can't exist.

hi hi

Neither does it mean that a magic invisible teapot that lies between the Earth and Mars cannot exist either, but the burden of proof lies with the hypothesis, not the skeptic. Until someone can find an situation where a phenomenon makes a detectable difference, it might as well make no difference.

I <3 Bertrand Russel.

And as a physicist, I could say we couldn't care less. We build models to describe observations and make predictions; we don't deal with metaphysics and what "really exists or not". Fundamental interactions could in fact be due to gnomes, for all we know; yet, what we care about is how to describe them in a way that allows for accurate predictions via Quantum Field Theory. And the model doesn't have room for tachyons.

As for the analogy between the speed of sound and the speed of light, there has never been a physical argument that the sound barrier couldn't be broken. Alas, special relativity is a very tough little theory. I'm not going to predict that FTL travel/data transfer will never exist, but I am not betting on it as it looks quite unlikely.

As much as it hurts me to say this I must... then why are there so many theoretical physicists involved with string theory and areas of string theory that they admit will never be able to be tested?

Um no that will stay relatively consistent I think. I am saying that some one may bypass or circumvent a way to exceed the speed of light or travel distances that would make it seem like you were going faster than light, or learn something more about the speed of light that allows data or other objects to travel faster than it. Sort of like newtons laws they still exist and work, but we learned more and now they still are solid except under situations where we use relativity. So who is to say in the future we don't have something where we say relativity is still solid except under situations where we use the cupcake theory or whatever.

My sad guess based on human nature is that is where the grants are.

that would be really sad. I think physics has been badly infiltrated by Set theorists, theoretical topologists and philosophy majors.