Instantaneous travel of macroscopic objects?

[DivineNathicana]

Einstein said that instantaneous travel was impossible. Quantum physicists are saying that it is - for quantum particles. But I have a different question: Can we not say that macroscopic objects are ALREADY undergoing instantaneous travel? (I want to make it clear that I am NOT bashing either of the aforementioned.)

 

My reasoning is as follows: When an object (any object) moves (at all in general), it has to INSTANTANEOSLY move to SOMEWHERE: say from consecutive points A to B. If you push a ball down a hill, sure it doesn't go from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill instantaneously. However, it must go SOMEWHERE instantaneously, be it a Planck's length distance, but still somewhere.

 

It should not take any time to get there because think about it: If it takes time to get there, that means that during the duration of this time, it was at a point BETWEEN A and B, to which then it must have traveled instantaneously and so on... There is a Planck's length limit to the distance an object can travel. Thus if it travels h-bar, it simply cannot be cought "in-between" hypothetical points A and B because there really is no "in-between", making its motion instantaneous.

 

- Alisa

[paultrr]

See: http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electro...xt-2004-109.pdf and http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electro...xt-2004-115.pdf and

http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electro...xt-2004-116.pdf and

http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electro...xt-2004-121.pdf for a general treatment using one VSL approach and for one possible solution to that question. If one takes some of the implications of QM and modern theory to heart then in essence at the Planck scale every object in this universe moves not only here, but, also through hyperspace itself. Since we generally tend to judge the expance of time for any given event based upon our measurement of C such movement through hyperspace would be for all intents done in zero time in relation to our observed frame of reference. However, its actual time in the frame of reference of hyperspace itself may involve some passage of time that is simply too fast for us to judge or even begin to measure. Sending Macro objects over a larger distance while theoretically possible actually would seem to involve a form of time travel into the future. As such, that type of path does not really beat light in our own frame. In fact, if the value of C is higher in hyperspace it really does not beat light in that frame of reference either.

 

One key here is playing with the local value of C for two different frames and comparing the results to each other. By usage of a frame with a higher value all one does is manage to travel into the future, not the past. As such, that path becomes little different from say making it somehow possible for a object here to move at C. By SR such an object would experience zero time in its own frame while for the earth hundreds or thousands of years might have passed.

[paultrr]

There are two types of superluminal effects found in theory.

 

1.) True tachyon like motion which involves beating light itself.(see Wormholes, Warp drive, etc). Even these can used altered local values for C. But the key difference is they really do establish a path over which an object could beat a light signal in our normal frame of reference.

 

2.) Altered local values of C where the frame in question still moves forward in time in relation to ours.(Those macroscopic spacetime shortcuts).

[gpdone]

Dear Divineone,

 

I cannot fault your logic for the following reasons:

*Based on the way we measure time the first tick cannot really exixt or be sensable until the smallist discrete particle of whatever things as we know them are made of has moved completly passed the starting point. In my opinion the only way that this can and probably will be challenged is mathmatically which bares no necessesary connection to reallity.

 

Lee

[DivineNathicana]

Paultrr, I wasn't really talking about altering the value of C so much as moving objects instantaneously. I mean, I see how they're related (discussions of movong macroscopic objects very fast often involve terminology such as ">C"), but I mean INSTANTANEOUSLY, which C is not.

 

- Alisa

[Tormod]

Einstein said that instantaneous travel was impossible.

 

AFAIK Einstein's point was that it is impossible due to the limits on speed of information, ie c. So you cannot avoid c in this discussion.

 

Instantaneous travel boils down to semantics: what is an "instant". You might be interested in reading something about Goedels Continuum Hypothesis which tries to explain the relation between space, time, and distance:

 

The Continuum Hypothesis

http://www.ii.com/math/ch/

 

For something to move from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously, it would actually have to travel faster than light, which spends 8 minutes on the journey (at the speed of c, obviously). So instantaneous travel is the same as travelling back in time.

 

I think splitting the line of motion into points is needless - macroscopic objects most definitely do NOT move at planck scales. Even when you stand still every single cell in your body is moving somewhere (say you sway slightly back and forth or shiver) and the ground you are standing on is on a rotating globe in orbit around a star in orbit around a galaxy heading towards a galaxy cluster.

 

Quantum particles show strange behaviour, yes. But they are not observed to move faster than c (the hypothetical "tachyon" does this but is not yet observed - and Feynman's diagrams show that all particles move backwards in time - theoretically).

 

Since we do not completely understand what time is, arguments about this have a lot of fallacies. We know more about space than time so maybe we will find that isntant motion is possible. But as for today the only possible instant motion for macroscopic objects would be theoretical wormholes.

[paultrr]

Very true. In fact, the issue of wormholes comes up when one begins to discribe the quatum states itself. Some see the microscopic tunneling as being via wormholes. The problem there is the exotic energy requirement in the first place that tends at least at macroscopic scales to violate certain quantum energy conditions. Going down in scale one also encounters a wavefunction spread on anything one is trying to measure that makes it impossible to measure certain qualities exactly. Here time itself tends to break down.

 

When you consider a zero time frame itself there is not much of a difference between saying the object exists as if it was at C(with Lorentz time contraction to zero) and that its in an alternative frame where say C is infinite. Both result in a zero time experience. DSR(Double Special Relativity) somewhat hits upon this notion itself. Either way we cannot break time down small enough to actually measure events.

 

I also agree with the other statement made in a prior post concerning math. One can have mathamatical proofs that work out fine and have nothing to do with reality. Its the uncertanity principle that places our limits at present at understanding this. Untill we have a better grasp of what time exactly is we for the most part stuck with philosophical debate when it comes to this issue. Yes, multiverse type theory would tend to support there is movement there. But that same theory when combined with relativity also tends to show these paths are not the shortcut to everywhere some would like them to be. There is a vast difference between quantum information exchange and normal informational paths. While the first seems by EPR experiments to work in some kind of Instantaneous Frame from our perspective the second requires a more long term path. Also, even the first path requires the long path to actual measure anything.

[gpdone]

Tormod,

 

Please explain your logic here

 

For something to move from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously, it would actually have to travel faster than light, which spends 8 minutes on the journey (at the speed of c, obviously). So instantaneous travel is the same as travelling back in time.

 

I do not understand how the 'back in time' statement follows from the previous statement.

 

Lee

[paultrr]

There are two types of faster than light motion encountered in modern theory:

 

1.) True tachyon like motion that is backwards in time.

 

2.) Faster than light effects out of GR like wormholes, warp drives, etc. Their motion while providing a shortcut that allows faster travel are not really backwards in time. The arrow of time still is forward for these types of paths. From the perspective of a normal C frame they do tend to beat a photon. But they do so by the means of a shorter path.

 

He can correct me here. However, I assume he was refering to the first.

 

An interesting aspect in all this is found in something Hawking mentions in his books, "The Universe in a Nutshell". In that book Hawking mentions all those quantum wavefunction predictions and how ever set of them does contain FTL states. The normal assumption is these states are simply an artifact of the math involved. However, some of the more recent quantum based theory tends to assume these states possible exist in higher dimensions. Rather making the leap that perhaps the math has been telling us something all along. The problem here is that tachyon fields from what we can tell in our spacetime would tend to hyper inflate. Another words they would be unstable. So if any of these odd type of states are real one could also assume they must be simular to the second class mentioned above.

 

The real problem is none of these possible states have any direct way offered to measure them. A few of us who have looked at solutions like those Alcubierre once proposed have noted something of a signature such a field would have. That signature turns out to be simular to that of Hawking radiation in the form of very high blue shifted particles. A simular signature has always been known from theory for real tachyon particles if they could exist in our spacetime.

[Bo]

if i understand the original question correctly then i dont think we need space time curves, altering c or whatever (it is fun though :eek:) The only thing we need is the quantum wave

 

the problem with the discontinuity on the planck scale only applies to a measurement of the particle. as soon as the particle is unperturbed, the wave function (describing the probability to find the particle anywhere) is spread out over space (due to the uncertainty effect). and it might move, or whatever, but the point is, it is completely continuous, onlyt when a measurement or interaction is made, the wave function collapses and feels the discontinuity of space.

 

i think :) i'm very tired and after writing the above down, i'm not completely sure anymore...

 

Bo

[paultrr]

It is completely continuous as far as the spread. The problem is found in the spread itself. At the Planck scale that spread is to infinity not only in the spread of its momentum as well as its position. By theory the particle exists as if it existed at every point in spacetime at the same time which rather is in contradiction to the normal locality of any event as defined under SR. It was over these same points that Einstein raised some of his first complaints about quantum theory somewhat leading to his famous, "Does God play dice) statement.

 

The original question here concerns is there instantious movement. By theory yes. But as you pointed out by measurement or at least what we can observe no as far as what we know about wavefunction collapse. I think it is safe to say that at macroscales our bodies are observed in one format or another constantly by someone or something. Planck scale effects for all intents do not exist at such scales. Now, does our very subatomic particles form such tricks is any bodies guess given we cannot measure such directly. In fact, the very act of measurement tends to collapse the wavefunction to begin with as Bo pointed out.

[DivineNathicana]

paultrr, why can't we consider Planck scales for macroscopic objects? Althouth we obviously cannot feel them directly, if they do exit, can't we say that we are constantly, on the fundamental level, moving through them? Why do conflicts arise when we take into consideration all measurements done for a macroscopic objects on microscopic scales as a sum? Shouldn't that theoretically be logical? Why can't it be applied to observable scales?

 

- Alisa

[Tormod]

Why do conflicts arise when we take into consideration all measurements done for a macroscopic objects on microscopic scales as a sum? Shouldn't that theoretically be logical? Why can't it be applied to observable scales?

 

Just a small comment here: With "macroscopic" I mean anything that is larger than a hydrogen atom, deuterium, and other variations. Atoms and subatomic particles behave according to quantum mechanics (ie, the uncertainty principle, tunnelling, entanglement, energy quanta, plank length etc).

 

Macroscopic objects, ie anything that is a composite of the hydrogen atom and it's constituents, also behave according to qunatum mechanics but it very fast becomes less noticeable. A human body consists of so many particles that the body in itself will not ever experience instant tunnelling, say, or the effects of the weak and strong forces - even though the trillions of particles in our bodies do.

 

So while we use classical physics and relativity to explain the behaviour of macroscopic objects, we use quantum physics to explain the behaviour of the very small.

[Tormod]

Tormod,

 

Please explain your logic here

 

For something to move from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously, it would actually have to travel faster than light, which spends 8 minutes on the journey (at the speed of c, obviously). So instantaneous travel is the same as travelling back in time.

 

I do not understand how the 'back in time' statement follows from the previous statement.

 

Lee

 

paultrr is correct and my statement needs some explanation. The effects of instantaneous travel are interesting. If I should happen to be in an aircraft hovering above the surface of the sun at an angle where I can see the "back" of the sun yet still see the Earth, I can theoretically see a sunspot move into view to a point where it will be seen from the Earth.

 

Now, I travel instantaneously back to Earth with my spaceship's black hole field generator and look through my telescope when I arrive back on Earth. I will not see the sunspot move into view for another eight minutes. However, assuming I have an incredibly good telescope, I can also see my own spaceship hover above the surface of the Sun for those 8 minutes, and indeed also listen to signals I sent 8 minutes before I left the Sun.

 

So it will appear as if I have moved 8 minutes back in time. I could even say to someone that "I have seen a sunspot move into view, but you my friend will not be able to see it in another 8 minutes", and it will prove true in 8 minutes. I have thus moved faster from A (the surface of the Sun) to B (the surface of the Earth) than c and thus I have travelled faster than light. According to general relativity I have thus moved backwards in time (and thus also faster than information can travel, which is also c). Note that the spaceship has not travelled in time, only instantly relocated in space, so there are no relativistic problems with time dilation etc.

 

The above scenario is of course entirely hypothetical because as of yet we do not know of any way that instantaneous travel can occur.

[paultrr]

Yes, that was why I tried to contrast the two types of FTL motion. The one with the Instantious type motion actually could display notions of both types of movements. One in that case beats the light signal. By our perspective time keeping on earth its traveled backwards in time, yet, also, it never altered its own time frame to do so. Something almost akin to a short range warp drive also in that you move quicker than light, but you're still forward as far as time keeping goes. GR and QM both have all these funny little potential shortcuts by the math. The problem is figuring out if any of them actually are possible in the real world.

[DivineNathicana]

Tormod:

 

Hmm but is it correct to say that you traveled back in time? All that really happened is that those on Earth were not able to find out about your whereabouts due to the fact that you were now the “fastest moving reference frame”, and not c. Just because those back on Earth did not know about the sunspot did not stop it from being there, just as if the sun suddenly exploded, you would not say that just because we saw it only eight minutes later, it traveled back in time.

 

Your scenario only seems like time travel because you are actually introducing a speed above c, which is our basic (observed) speed limit. Do you see what I’m getting at here? It’s only “time travel” because you’re hypothetically traveling faster than the fastest speed, thus introducing a new “fastest speed” – instantaneous travel. If you accept this as your new speed limit, you can see that the situation can no longer be thought of “time travel”.

 

Anything ABOVE this speed, however, WOULD be considered time travel as it would be faster than instantaneous, which means literally arriving before you started out, and without any relativistic tricks.

 

- Alisa

[sanctus]

I see the problem in completely other perspective: the macroscopic objects do actually move from point A to B instantanously, what we forget there is that a point is a mathematical object without any dimension, so when a macroscopic object moves from A to B it doesn't actually move in space-time so there is no contradiction with einstein.

We all now how reality is different, we can't take a point, but we have to take an interval (supposing continuity of space-time) and an interval has dimension and therefore A and B are actually separated in space-time and therefore instantanous travel is not possible.

Mathematically i see an intervall as the limit to infinite of consecuting points Ci, translating this to what I wrote above, it means that even if travelling from Ci to Cj (j=i+1) is istantaneous the limit to infinite (tehrefore an interval) hasn't to be istantaneous.

 

This reasonig follows from the mathematically property that if C=limCi and Ci < A we have C<=A.