Understanding the Speed of Force: Instantaneous vs. Speed of Light

[pgardn]

Common sense is not necessarily truth, whereas even truth is not necessarily truth...though I guess we do have to be more careful when thinking scientifically.

This really does not get us anywhere. We have to have some set of conventions we agree upon in Science even though we should be careful in examining their potential of becoming inadequate based on experimental evidence. I personally am having difficulty with the whole action at a distance idea and time because of the findings in some of these entagled particle experiments.

 

[russ_watters]

It is also fairly obvious to me that humans can only understand and perceive a certain amount of what might be present in the universe. We are limited by our evolutionary history. We are not infallible machines.

Some of those statements are true, but the first does not follow from them. You are assuming it requires an intelligence beyond what humans posess in order to understand everything. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, but the only piece of evidence we have to go on about that is that we are still learning - so if that point exists, we aren't there yet.

 

[Red_CCF]

Assuming you are applying a force to something, then the effects of that force travel through the object at the speed of sound in that object. Much slower then the speed of light.

How do we actually know that?

 

[pgardn]

Some of those statements are true, but the first does not follow from them. You are assuming it requires an intelligence beyond what humans posess in order to understand everything. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, but the only piece of evidence we have to go on about that is that we are still learning - so if that point exists, we aren't there yet.

I don't know what an intelligence beyond really means. Maybe a different sort of intelligence that arises due to a very diff way of actually being able to assess the world around us through senses which might lead to the evolution of a brain that views the world differently due to the input it received while going through development. We are clearly slaves to our evolutionary history. A species of dolphin that lives in hopelessly turbid water clicks and receives echoed signals that help it get a "picture" of the world around it. I don't know what smooth hard rock vs. an algae covered rock "looks" like to this animal. And I am very sure it will not be doing science. But the way this animal's brain develops to help it survive and survey its world must be incredibly different than ours. So its perception might lead the animal to, if it had our inquisitive brain that recognizes and ponders its own existence and what the future holds, might lead to a very diff. sort of thought process. (crazy example, but I am very attuned to how sensory input affects the development of a nervous system, especially complex nervous systems that are not totally involuntary) I also realize this dolphin is not typing on a Physics forum.

Imo we will always be learning and models will always require modification as experimental methods become refined or advances in technology allow us to look at phenomena in a new light. It seems to me that sometimes particular generations get very full of themselves and seem convinced they are at the pinnacle of understanding. I just see shifts in models and new ways of looking at problems. Imo we will never understand everything. Maybe my view is way off. Sorry for running on so.

Anyways... still perplexed about what seems to be a simultaneous relay of information.

 

[russ_watters]

How do we actually know that?

The implications of that are vast and as such the evidence is as we'll. One large field dedicated to the concept is mechanical vibrations.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know what an intelligence beyond really means.

Well that's the point: you are postulating the existence of a beyond when we have yet to reach a limit. We don't know if there is a beyond!

Anyways... still perplexed about what seems to be a simultaneous relay of information.

Maybe we should get back to that. Here's how the guy with the laser pointer thing works:

Person 1 points a laser pointer at a person 2 and turns it on. A finite amount of time later, person 2 sees it go on. The information of the lighting of the laser pointer is transferred from person 1 to person 2 at the speed of light. Let's say, that took 1 second. Then, person 1 sweeps the laser from person 1 to person 2. It takes 1 second for person 1 to see the laser start to move away from him, then an arbitrarily small time later, person 3 sees the laser. He's also 1 light second from person 1. So, did information get transferred from person 2 to person 3 in a very short time? No, the information is the disposition of the laser. It gets transferred from person 1 to both person 2 and person 3, not from person 2 to person 3. When person 3 sees the laser, he sees it because 1 second before, person 1 started to move it.

Understand?

 

[pgardn]

Well that's the point: you are postulating the existence of a beyond when we have yet to reach a limit. We don't know if there is a beyond! Maybe we should get back to that. Here's how the guy with the laser pointer thing works:

Person 1 points a laser pointer at a person 2 and turns it on. A finite amount of time later, person 2 sees it go on. The information of the lighting of the laser pointer is transferred from person 1 to person 2 at the speed of light. Let's say, that took 1 second. Then, person 1 sweeps the laser from person 1 to person 2. It takes 1 second for person 1 to see the laser start to move away from him, then an arbitrarily small time later, person 3 sees the laser. He's also 1 light second from person 1. So, did information get transferred from person 2 to person 3 in a very short time? No, the information is the disposition of the laser. It gets transferred from person 1 to both person 2 and person 3, not from person 2 to person 3. When person 3 sees the laser, he sees it because 1 second before, person 1 started to move it.

Understand?

With light... yes.

So now explain this.
Two entangled particles are separated. The spin on one is changed and the spin on the other one changes simultaneously to mimic its partner. There is no "time" delay. It is considered instantaneous by experimentation. The information has been transferred instantaneously. You can continue... help... So this is all just an observer/ frame of reference problem? It has not been presented that way.

 

[pgardn]

Well that's the point: you are postulating the existence of a beyond when we have yet to reach a limit. We don't know if there is a beyond! Maybe we should get back to that.

I don't see this as a beyond. Different is better for me. But I see your point. Maybe I should add that I think the program sending out radio signals and trying to pick up radio signals in order to communicate with something else out there was/is rather silly. Sending pi via EM waves... I found this terribly strange for anyone who understands the history of life on earth, that somehow human-like intelligence is inevitable via evolution. Maybe this statement helps explain where my thoughts above come from.