24 Feb '19 19:42>
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-wild-new-papers-suggests-space-time-is-just-a-product-of-quantum-mechanics
@sonhouse saidI wasn't impressed by the article. It was poorly explained and it has this quote:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-wild-new-papers-suggests-space-time-is-just-a-product-of-quantum-mechanics
@metal-brain saidThere you go again. It only "Doesn't make sense" to YOU because you don't understand the relevant science (quantum machanics in this case).
I wasn't impressed by the article. It was poorly explained and it has this quote:
"And that's not even mentioning the other strange phenomena that we now have evidence for but can't quite explain - such as quantum entanglement and quantum tunnelling, where information appears to travel faster than the speed of light. How do they fit in with general relativity?"
Why does information appear to travel faster than the speed of light if it does not? Doesn't make sense.
@humy saidNothing travels faster than light. Do you think you are smarter than Einstein? You don't make sense.
There you go again. It only "Doesn't make sense" to YOU because you don't understand the relevant science (quantum machanics in this case).
It has been often claimed that quantum tunneling doesn't violate relativity because the speed limit c in relativity doesn't apply to quantum tunneling. Just like so many laws of physics, there may be loopholes and exceptions to the law even ...[text shortened]... .
No opinion due to insufficient data is a perfectly valid position and often the only right one. "
@metal-brain saidAnd I never said/implied I had the opinion that something could travel faster than light, MORON.
Nothing travels faster than light.
Do you think you are smarter than Einstein?
@humy said"And I never said/implied I had the opinion that something could travel faster than light, MORON"
And I never said/implied I had the opinion that something could travel faster than light, MORON.
I just explicitly said that there is currently a heated debate among physicists on whether quantum tunneling is a special exception to the speed of light rule (by which I mean the rule that nothing can go over c) and I also explicitly said that I have NO PERSONAL OPINION on whether ...[text shortened]... 't, so what? Where did I say I disagree with Einstein on that? As I said, I have no opinion on that.
@metal-brain saidI didn't agree with you about the speed of light law but rather said I had no opinion on it.
Then you are nitpicking over nothing since you agree with me.
@humy saidSo you doubt Einstein is right. That is a bit arrogant.
I didn't agree with you about the speed of light law but rather said I had no opinion on it.
You said "You don't make sense." to me, and NOW you say "you agree with me" to me? Its you who is making no sense.
@metal-brain saidNo. I don't even know what Einstein's opinion was on that (speed of light law and whether quantum tunneling is an exception) so how can I doubt that his opinion was right about that when I don't know what it was? You make no sense.
So you doubt Einstein is right.
I seem to recall you had a different opinion on this when discussing quantum entanglement in the past.
Have you changed your opinion since learning about quantum tunneling?No.
@humy saidEinstein never doubted his assertion that nothing travels faster than light.
No. I don't even know what Einstein's opinion was on that (speed of light law and whether quantum tunneling is an exception) so how can I doubt that his opinion was right about that when I don't know what it was? You make no sense.I seem to recall you had a different opinion on this when discussing quantum entanglement in the past.
What 'opinion' was that t ...[text shortened]... university decades ago and well before I did my first post at these forums.
Next stupid question...
@metal-brain saidHe, just like I, never doubted it for the speed of particles and objects traveled through space WITHOUT quantum tunneling, NOT necessarily for particles traveled through space via quantum tunneling, which may or may not have been viewed by him (along with many but not all modern physicists) as a possible special albeit trivial exception to that. Even if he believed that wasn't a special (albeit trivial) exception, I never said/implied that there exists such an exception, because I have no opinion on that. Which part of "no opinion" to you not understand? I have yet to found out what his opinion on that was so how can I disagree with his opinion on that when I don't know what it was? -you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even if I knew his opinion on that, how could I disagree with or doubt it in particular when I have no opinion on that? -"no opinion" means just that, "NO OPINION". For all we know, just like me, he may have had no opinion on that (perfectly credible. Why not?), in which case there would be no possible point of contention there anyway.
Einstein never doubted his assertion that nothing travels faster than light.