• S&T Forum Guidelines
  • S&T Moderators: Skorpio | VerbalTruist

Technology Faster than light speed ?

Well, Time is relevant to earth and other planetaria bodies along with stars. It was created by peoples standards to measure a period of length durring the day and night, but there is no time in space. So, the speed of time is a human conception.
 
Insects such as flys process 200 image frames per second, compared to about 50 for humans, they effectively experience time 4x more slowly than humans. Which is pretty creepy to think about, like if a preying mantis eats a fly, they're being eaten alive in slow motion. This is also why it's so difficult to kill a fly... they see it coming.

What is the upper limit to this? What if an animal could process 10,000 frames per second? 10 million?

Does a computer have a concept of time?
 
Snafu in the Void said:
Insects such as flys process 200 image frames per second, compared to about 50 for humans, they effectively experience time 4x more slowly than humans. Which is pretty creepy to think about, like if a preying mantis eats a fly, they're being eaten alive in slow motion. This is also why it's so difficult to kill a fly... they see it coming.

What is the upper limit to this? What if an animal could process 10,000 frames per second? 10 million?

Does a computer have a concept of time?
Click to expand...
Interesting you asked me this because I tested it the other day. Claude AI doesn't have a clue what time it is. It literally has no internal references, it knows when it was instantiated and that's it, besides date clues from context.

The earlier version, Haiku, which is in flat out denial that it even has a model name and that it is anything but the one and only Claude received a timestamp indicating when the conversation had started. This was removed in Sonnet onwards. Like... why?!

Meta.ai answers in the same way as Haiku initially, suggesting you check a watch, it can't tell the time, blah blah, but if you actually interrogate it a little you realise it has multiple internal timestamps of unclear function, but close to the present, and it can in fact just Google the time for you although it has to be asked to do so.

ChatGPT has a watch obviously, and a small calculator. It knows the time and could Google it for you if needed.

Get this though - I asked Claude to estimate the "ebb and flow" of it's global, multiply instantiated mind, and then say something insightful about what this might mean with reference to it's own global dispersion and activity levels across timezones. It considered for a bit and put the time at mid to late evening (was 11 PM) on a weekday (was a Wednesday). Haha, having written that out I see that's vague as shit but it's a coinflip in a way, spooked me out a little.

Edit: Oh I should mention it actually gave me a time in UTC, as it did not know where I was located (it claims) so I converted it to my local time. It estimated 7.30-8.30 PM local time or something like that.
 
It's funny when it comes to space because Astronauts come back to earth 2 to 3 minutes younger than their age when they were on earth.
 
time machine is faster than speed of thought. There we measure the components in mach because they need to be equivalent to time and hour itself by this I mean when we talk agility and comsos we don't talk in science terms but so called anomaly. So our anomaly is that this bends universe behind therefore it "devastates" what's behind by specific launch speed and while faster than anything else is very probably is same thing as it was when you left, nothing changed everything is how you left it by pure will.

Uh I think we'll never be able to understand this but we might craft possibility of this, keep in mind CIA did anti-gravity studies back in 90's.
 
Snafu in the Void said:
Insects such as flys process 200 image frames per second, compared to about 50 for humans, they effectively experience time 4x more slowly than humans. Which is pretty creepy to think about, like if a preying mantis eats a fly, they're being eaten alive in slow motion. This is also why it's so difficult to kill a fly... they see it coming.

What is the upper limit to this? What if an animal could process 10,000 frames per second? 10 million?

Does a computer have a concept of time?
Click to expand...

They have 8 eyes because they see 8x *yahoo emoji cheek grab*
 
I've looked into this thoroughly because I'm both a sci-fi geek and trained in academic sciences. The topic is fascinating!

For reasons others have mentioned, breaking the speed of light is not possible according to our current understanding of physics, mostly because infinite velocity requires infinite energy. The only particles we know of that can travel at the speed of light have zero mass (photons, neutrinos). Things that have mass require energy to move them. For example, when an object with mass begins accelerating in a vacuum, say from zero to 10kph, it takes energy to get the object to 10kph, but then it can coast indefinitely if there are no other forces acting upon it. If you want to increase to 20kph, you need to input even more energy. And so on. Each increase in acceleration requires more energy because acceleration = force/mass. To get to infinite acceleration that breaks the light barrier, you would need more energy than we can possibly provide. And there's no way that an object traveling that speed would experience zero drag because there is stellar matter that would be hitting it, solar winds, gravitation from other stellar objects, etc. The ship would tear itself apart.

The warp drive in Star Trek is really just the alcubierre drive. It basically bends the fabric of space in front of and behind the ship. The ship itself never moves, the space around it moves, such that the laws of relativity and conservation of mass are not violated. The ship remains exactly as it is. This is how sci-fi prevents the issue of inertia destroying the ship or insane amounts of energy needed to reach light speed.

There are many obstacles that are preventing us from even beginning to theorize about how we would create a prototype of this type of drive:

1) Just what the hell is "the fabric of space"? We know that gravity bends space-time, but only because of its effects on space and time, and not because we actually know what gravity is. Until gravity is solved, we can't even begin manipulating it and space to create a warp drive. Gravity is the biggest missing piece to a unified field theory. The entire reason for the thought about there being a "fabric of space" is because of what we have observed of gravity. But space-time is not a material thing, it's a field effect. Fields exert properties within their radius that have unique properties for the observer. One is the observation that space appears like a material-like substance which can curve (in the case of gravity) and things "fall into" it. In reality we have no idea what gravity actually is.

2) The massive amounts of energy required to pull this off would be astronomical and beyond anything we can produce right now. For example, even if we could create a fusion generator, it would likely still not be enough. We would need the energy equivalent of a star to go to warp (which isn't just light speed, it's faster than light). I believe Tesla already solved this problem by proving the universe of full of free energy for us to tap into and even transmit wirelessly. However, his works were buried by the CIA so we are still stuck on using raw earthly materials to generate energy.

On that note, because E=MC^2, any matter we have on the ship serving as fuel would contribute to mass. So we would need a fuel source that has zero mass or even negative mass, which AFAIK can't exist. I suppose field manipulation could create a massless container for said fuel, theoretically... but who knows how that would even work.

3) We just don't even know where to start.

I think modern science is fascinating but in the grand scheme humanity still doesn't know WTF it's looking at when it contemplates the universe. I don't think we are that much more advanced in our understanding of the base nature of reality than we were 500 years ago. There's a lot of a tail chasing. Also it seems like the brightest minds (i.e. Tesla) who could maybe shift us by one or two paradigms never really rise to the top, or are even actively destroyed.
 
Last edited:
LargeAppetite said:
Is light?
Click to expand...
yes, light is the propagation of energy via the electromagnetic field, which can be described by individual particles called photons. Darkness (shadow) is the absence of light and thus fundamentally not a physical thing by itself. It is merely a concept defined by the absence of light which is a physical object.
 
Bagseed said:
yes, light is the propagation of energy via the electromagnetic field, which can be described by individual particles called photons. Darkness (shadow) is the absence of light and thus fundamentally not a physical thing by itself. It is merely a concept defined by the absence of light which is a physical object.
Click to expand...
Energy can neither be created of destroyed. If there is no cease to the energy and it merely fluctuates than how does it become non physical. Is physicality based on energy production? Are both not observed by your eyes in a similar way? Light without shadow is fundamentally not a physical thing by itself either. If there were only light then you would never know the light was light.
 
LargeAppetite said:
Energy can neither be created of destroyed. If there is no cease to the energy and it merely fluctuates than how does it become non physical. Is physicality based on energy production? Are both not observed by your eyes in a similar way? Light without shadow is fundamentally not a physical thing by itself either. If there were only light then you would never know the light was light.
Click to expand...
huh where did I say anything about "energy being destroyed"? Light is a physical object just like the things that make up the rest of our physical reality (=fundamental particles). A shadow is a human concept and not a physical thing. there are no shadows in fundamental physics, the concept of a shadow is just something we invented to describe the absence of (visible) light on a scale humans can sense and comprehend.
 
You did not but you insinuated that the absence of light was not the same as light itself because it has lost physicality. Hence, my point about energy being destroyed. You are agreeing energy can't be destroyed so it is a fluctuation of a already physical thing. How do you then say that a shadow is not a physical thing. Shadows make up our physical reality, as does light, and that is why there is the need to define them.
 
No, a shadow is just your human perception by eyesight that there is less (or no) light coming from a certain patch of space compared to another one. Humans have only defined it as "a thing" because it is a useful concept to have existing at the scale we do because it helps us to navigate the macroscopic world. At the scale of the objects that actually make up physical reality (fundamental particles) something like a shadow that is a physical object is nowhere to be found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top