Thoughts travelling faster than c

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cbray
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thoughts
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the claim made in the show "Through the Wormhole" that thoughts can travel faster than the speed of light (c), which many participants find scientifically inaccurate. Critics argue that while the show may be entertaining, it often presents misleading information about science. The speed of thought is suggested to be much slower, around 100 m/s, based on neural communication. Some participants note that the concept of "visiting" places in the mind is more poetic than scientific, emphasizing the distinction between imagination and reality. Overall, the thread highlights frustration with the show's scientific credibility while acknowledging its potential for entertainment.
Cbray
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
I was watching a program, Through the Wormhole.
They were saying thoughts can travel faster than c, I thought information couldn't even travel faster than c. I don't know how this could be true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh my god, they did?

What kind of garbage is that show putting out there.

That's so wrong and stupid that I want to kill whoever is in charge of producing that show.
 
baha, calm down
 
I saw that programme last year - although it was only transmitted the other day. A wormhole, perhaps, or I could just be lying.
 
I'd be curious how you go about measuring the speed of thoughts...
 
I know that rumours can travel faster than the official version of most stories.
This is a silly topic, you know.
 
I guess the speed a signal is sent through a neuron, along with how many neuron communications it takes to make a 'thought' would give the speed of a thought.
 
Cbray said:
I was watching a program, Through the Wormhole.
They were saying thoughts can travel faster than c, I thought information couldn't even travel faster than c. I don't know how this could be true?

I ranted on this show in another post recently. They're just flat full of crap a lot of the time.

Too bad because it can be an entertaining show and has good production values except for the fact that their science adviser seems to be a high school dropout.
 
  • #10
It depends on how you see it. They were probably talking about the fact that you can go and visit Andromeda galaxy with your mind (of course you just imagine being there) in a flash as oposed to the time taken by the light to get there.
Of course it's more poetry than science but for lots of people this is food for thought.
 
  • #11
atomthick said:
It depends on how you see it. They were probably talking about the fact that you can go and visit Andromeda galaxy with your mind (of course you just imagine being there) in a flash as oposed to the time taken by the light to get there.
Of course it's more poetry than science but for lots of people this is food for thought.

You cannot "visit" anything. The fact that it's artistic doesn't stop it being totally wrong.
 
  • #12
BruceW said:
I guess the speed a signal is sent through a neuron, along with how many neuron communications it takes to make a 'thought' would give the speed of a thought.

First you would have to solve the hard problem of conscientiousness and find out how thoughts are generated. Comparing the speed of action potentials to thought's is like trying to figure out the speed of a nation by measuring average walking speed.
 
  • #13
atomthick said:
It depends on how you see it. They were probably talking about the fact that you can go and visit Andromeda galaxy with your mind (of course you just imagine being there) in a flash as oposed to the time taken by the light to get there.
Of course it's more poetry than science but for lots of people this is food for thought.

No, based on what I've seen on the program and the GROSS factual misstatements they make, I'd say they probably meant it literally.
 
  • #14
I'll be sure to steer well clear of this program if I ever come across it.
 
  • #15
You could miss out on some interesting stuff if you always avoid anything a bit whacky. If you are 'secure' in what you know then it cannot harm you.
Is there no worth in fantasy fiction, for instance?
 
  • #16
sophiecentaur said:
You could miss out on some interesting stuff if you always avoid anything a bit whacky. If you are 'secure' in what you know then it cannot harm you.
Is there no worth in fantasy fiction, for instance?

The biggest danger is what programs like this do for my blood pressure.
 
  • #17
Ha, yeah that's true. Maybe this "through the wormhole" could be useful in providing a few laughs about how terribly they can get it wrong.
 
Back
Top