Instantaneous travel of macroscopic objects?

[DivineNathicana]

Originally Posted by Tormod

It's good to have polls! But the one in this thread is not easy to answer. The Big Bang model is also a cosmological model which should be on that list - as is the epkyrotic universe. "Relativistic theories" is not a model for our universe, it is a study of certain physical properties of it.

(And not everyone would figure out that LQG is Loop Quantum Gravity...).

So 10 points for trying but I think the poll needs some modifications.

Alright, first of all, I wassn't listing cosmological models but rather physical theories. There are way too many equally credible cosmological models such as the Big Bang, the two branes theory, and etc. That's exactly why it makes sense to have Relativistic Theories on there.

I can fix the Loop Quantum Gravity one, but I'm not sure how one may edit polls.

Also, 10 points on what? I'm confused. = )

- Alisa

[Keebs]

If you're discussing a discrete space, then there are discrete time units as well. They only viable increments I've seen for a discrete-spacetime so far would be the planck length and time, which give c as the fastest possible velocity. Neato.

[alxian]

Originally Posted by Tormod

So when I look back towards the Sun what I would see is the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago, and my spaceship hovering above it for 8 minuts until the moment when I left

with this revised scenario, yes you will see yourself.

but its easiest to think of the effect as time shifting on a tv (or through cyberlinks dvd player when you accidentally hit pause)

basic things like this point to discretion, even though your scenario smacks of string theory.

no one answered my question though.. (i don't blame anyone since i posted so much to begin with)

and yes i'm aware of the poll.

what is the essence of the universe?

information on the net of vibrating strings (the strings are stationary and one dimensional monopoles)

or

those monopoles are simply the smallest particles we can detect but the universe is like a huge fractal infinitely complex no matter what scale you osbserve it with.

the intereaction of these ultra simple and universally ubiquitous (possibly the most ubiquitous element displacing hydrogen) and virtually identical particles make for the near perfect 'sandbox' element of our known universe.

--------
science has omitted something.. we know of quantum events all the way up to macro events like gamma ray burts and supernovae.. what happens when you have something on an equivelant order of magnitude? (quantum to gammaray burst) what if the event we call the big bang was in fact a big bang capable of generating z particles etc etc..
its well known that many aspects of our universe points to it being either very old (preceeding the estimated big bang event) and also very young (they deserve to be heard as much as ID peeps but have your salt shacker ready)

what if our range of view (defined by the radiation boundary and resolution of our current light processing technologies) was an extremelylimited view of the infinite whole.. or to bring relevence the active nature of the universe.. if ultra macro events like the big bang occur with predictable periods like suprnovae and gama ray bursts then perhaps our view of the cosmos would change no?

no while you are on that scale imagine that there are billions of alien species within our current detention bubble.. imagine the energy it would take to travel between all those worlds. makes me wish that the universe is actually information on a string based system, information can be limitlessly modified with little harm done to the stream.. but matter based on quatum particles that have no connection one to the other other than bumping as they pass through powerful for lack of a better term 'gravity' fields...

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by alxian

with this revised scenario, yes you will see yourself.

Why is it "revised"?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by DivineNathicana

I can fix the Loop Quantum Gravity one, but I'm not sure how one may edit polls.

Don't worry about it. Polls can't be edited after there are votes AFAIK.

Also, 10 points on what? I'm confused. = )

- Alisa

10 points for you, pal, for making the poll in the first place (it's a saying over here in Norway). I was not criticizing you. The poll is fine, I was just voicing my opinion on it.

[DivineNathicana]

Oh hehe I'm not very familiar with Norwegian sayings... I can tell you though, you guys have awesome bands from over there! Good luck with your music and stuff, Tormod. = )

Also, my comment about Tormod's quote stemmed from me thinking that he meant to say that you would instantaneously travel to the sun, and then instantaneously right back to Earth, in which case you would have to wait 8 minutes for the light to reach you, and would see yourself only for an instant.

If, however, you stay on the sun for over 8 minutes, yes, you will see yourself for 8 minutes through your telescope. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

- Alisa

[alxian]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Why is it "revised"?

true enough i meant clarified

i had assumed tor meant he would be travelling at some point.

but he in fact meant to travel instantaneously more by teleportation that matter translocation.

i'd thought he meant to travel along the foreshortened distance of a wormhole or something, having little understanding for his possible use of a black hole to move between discrete points in space.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by DivineNathicana

There is a Planck's length limit to the distance an object can travel.

This is a conjecture which has spread quite a bit, all too much imv. There is really no point in it and neither QM nor RQFT lead to its necessity. Further, it would be exceedingly difficult to reconcile with the Poincaré group as being a physical symmetry, quite essential to SR.

I don't know why so many people take such a conjecture seriously.