Faster than light

Corkscrewkenny

Podge_irl wrote: »

Our current theories aren't "based" on mathematics, they're based on experimental evidence - they're just formulated in mathematics as it's the natural language of physics

I agree, I understand, I comply.

I'll just make 1 point (maybe better described as a rant).

That an object reaches infinite mass if it moves through spacetime at the speed of light will never be proven with empirical evidence. It matters not that all theories and experimentation thus far point to this conclusion. Does mathemathical description not breakdown when it produces infinity as a result?. There can never be empirical proof. It can only ever be a theory.

Please just check the first capitalised word in the first post to this thread. I simply question if there is, in all theories of relativity and quantum mechanics and any other academic field one cares to use, any supposition(whether produced by theoretically or empirically) that points to the movement of information by this method, at faster than the speed of light, being impossible.

Podge_irl

Corkscrewkenny wrote: »

That an object reaches infinite mass if it moves through spacetime at the speed of light will never be proven with empirical evidence. It matters not that all theories and experimentation thus far point to this conclusion. Does mathemathical description not breakdown when it produces infinity as a result?. There can never be empirical proof. It can only ever be a theory.

The fact that the speed of light is a constant in any reference frame has however been proven empirically.

Talk of infinite mass is, in some ways, a poor way of describing relativity. You're right in that talk of infinities doesn't really make sense, but any massive body travelling at the speed of light doesn't make sense either. It's simply not possible for anything with mass to travel at c, so it's irrelevant what our theories imply happen at that point.

The primary point of special relativity is the equivalence of non-accelerating reference frames. That has been proven experimentally. The transfer of information at faster than the speed of light contravenes this experimentally proven idea. If information could travel faster than light than future events could affect the past, we would lost all sense of causality.


I really, really don't wish to seem condescending, but these discussions are best had through the medium of mathematics and proper theoretical physics, not abstract thought experiments.

gentillabdulla

Corkscrewkenny wrote: »

I agree, I understand, I comply.

I'll just make 1 point (maybe better described as a rant).

That an object reaches infinite mass if it moves through spacetime at the speed of light will never be proven with empirical evidence. It matters not that all theories and experimentation thus far point to this conclusion. Does mathemathical description not breakdown when it produces infinity as a result?. There can never be empirical proof. It can only ever be a theory.

Please just check the first capitalised word in the first post to this thread. I simply question if there is, in all theories of relativity and quantum mechanics and any other academic field one cares to use, any supposition(whether produced by theoretically or empirically) that points to the movement of information by this method, at faster than the speed of light, being impossible.

And I would like to mention that an object with mass that travels close to light speed never really gains mass.

It actually has an increase in inertial mass.As in it gets harder to accelerate.

Just a common misconception.

sponsoredwalk

Corkscrewkenny wrote: »

Does mathemathical description not breakdown when it produces infinity as a result?.

Look at this equation:



Forget about everything in it except for the stuff at the bottom of the fraction.

you see the √(1 - v²/c²) well the v² is your speed & the c² is light's speed.

You can never have v² = c² because if they are equal then v²/c² would equal 1!!!!!!!

If this happens then we will have √(1 - 1) = √0 & if we have zero underneath a fraction that makes complete nonsense in mathematics.

There are serious reasons why you shouldn't do this, as this quick video makes perfectly clear.

So, v² always has to be less than c²

This just gives you a sense of what it means for the mathematics to make sense,
if you think this is all wrong then you better get on the phone to the LHC people @ cern pretty quick

Corkscrewkenny

Podge_irl wrote: »

If information could travel faster than light than future events could affect the past, we would lost all sense of causality.


I really, really don't wish to seem condescending, but these discussions are best had through the medium of mathematics and proper theoretical physics, not abstract thought experiments.

No problem, with my physics education (TV) you can only but sound condecending.

I was about to reference this Rom Mallette guy (whom I learned about in a TV documentary) and his ideas about transmitting information to the past, but I read the "objections" section in his Wiki entry and they make more sense.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

And I would like to mention that an object with mass that travels close to light speed never really gains mass.

It actually has an increase in inertial mass.As in it gets harder to accelerate.

Just a common misconception.

OK, I also was told this on a TV program. What I think you're saying is that it gains kinetic energy as it accelerates (or is accellerated). Mass and energy are the same, with reference to the universal constant of light speed (E=Mc2). So matter travelling at light speed would require E>Mc2, or E+M.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This just gives you a sense of what it means for the mathematics to make sense,
if you think this is all wrong then you better get on the phone to the LHC people @ cern pretty quick

Thanks, I appreciate your time and effort. and I see your point in the equation. And I think the whole LHC project is a triumph of the human curiosity. I'll let them get on with it.

I think I read somewhere once of a theory that information/knowledge, once created, cannot be destroyed, so maybe the same laws apply to it as apply to matter and energy.

del88

gentillabdulla wrote: »

And I would like to mention that an object with mass that travels close to light speed never really gains mass.

It actually has an increase in inertial mass.As in it gets harder to accelerate.

Just a common misconception.

Quick question slightly off topic....
If an object gains inertial mass as it accelerates then would it be also true that all matter has been gaining inertial mass since the big bang ......and because the universe is still accelerating they are still gaining inertial mass....kinda like a ticking clock.

Capt'n Midnight

Corkscrewkenny wrote: »

I think I read somewhere once of a theory that information/knowledge, once created, cannot be destroyed, so maybe the same laws apply to it as apply to matter and energy.

Nope it don't refer to knowledge it only applies to physical information, not to "meaningful data"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Words in science can have specific meanings rather than the general meanings they have in everyday life. As a counter example the word OR to a computer programmer means they can pick both options.

some solutions suggest that even if the information isn't lost it's still unavailable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox#Main_approaches_to_the_solution_of_the_paradox

Podge_irl

del88 wrote: »

Quick question slightly off topic....
If an object gains inertial mass as it accelerates then would it be also true that all matter has been gaining inertial mass since the big bang ......and because the universe is still accelerating they are still gaining inertial mass....kinda like a ticking clock.

The acceleration of the universe and the acceleration of a massive body within the universe are fairly separate things. It's the difference between moving in space and space itself expanding.

Enkidu

Special Relativity is a strange subject in some ways. A lot of the confusion stems from the fact that we sort of combine our Newtonian intuition* with a few facts from Relativity. Of course we then get confused because this hybrid makes no internal sense. It is best to just forget everything and see the world the way Special Relativity describes it.

Basically in special relativity space and time are one object, spacetime. Now this is often something that is just said, but to see what it means you need a little bit of maths.

Let's say we will call distance in space dx and distance in time dt. Special relativity then says that the distance between two points in spacetime, ds, is:

ds^2 = (dt^2) - (dx^2)


Now, something I will not go into, Special Relativity says that 1 second is 300,000,000 meters in the temporal direction.
Now, for example, if you just sit where you are for one second then you have gone from:
t = 0, x = 0

to

t = 300,000,000 x = 0

So, dt = 300,000,000 and dx = 0. Putting this into the above formula gives:

ds = 300,000,000

So you have covered 300,000,000 meters in spacetime just by sitting on your chair.


Now let's say you went from here to the moon in two seconds. Then you would go from

t = 0, x = 0

to

t = 600,000,000, x = 363,104,000

Putting these numbers into the formula above we get:
ds = 477,656,241.64 meters

Now the surprising thing about this number is that it is not much different from the spacetime distance you cover when sitting on your chair. In fact, if you sat on your chair for two seconds you would cover a greater distance. So a counterintuitive fact:
You are closer, in spacetime to the moon two seconds from now than to your own chair two seconds from now.

Now try something faster than light, going to the moon in one second.
That gives:
dt = 300,000,000, dx = 363,104,000
If you put this into the formula you get an imaginary number. Now distances can only produce real numbers. An imaginary number basically means that there is no sensible notion of distance between you and that point in spacetime. It doesn't have a distance from you. (If you understand my meaning it has a distance of N/A, not a distance of 0.)

The formula above:
ds^2 = (dt^2) - (dx^2)
is called the metric. It basically tells you the distance between things. It tells you what geometry is like. For anything that would involve faster than light travel the rules of geometry produce an imaginary distance. Since you can only cover a real number distance, this means it is impossible to get.

By the laws of geometry this area of spacetime is cut off from you, it has no sensible geometric relationship with your position.

That is why you cannot travel faster than light. Not because you'll get infinitely heavy or anything, but because it's geometric nonsense.


*Of course our intuition is actually not even as advanced as Newtonian Mechanics, otherwise it wouldn't have taken Newton to come up with it.

gentillabdulla

I would like to mention the last part.

There are many reasons why you can't travel faster than light.

1. Is the mathematical nonsense(Courtesy of Sponsoredwalk)
2. Is the sheer amount of inertial mass you would gain.
3. Is the infinite energy you would need
And 4 is the geometroic nonsense you stated.

So there isn't just one.

del88

Enkidu wrote: »

Special Relativity is a strange subject in some ways. A lot of the confusion stems from the fact that we sort of combine our Newtonian intuition* with a few facts from Relativity. Of course we then get confused because this hybrid makes no internal sense. It is best to just forget everything and see the world the way Special Relativity describes it.

Basically in special relativity space and time are one object, spacetime. Now this is often something that is just said, but to see what it means you need a little bit of maths.

Let's say we will call distance in space dx and distance in time dt. Special relativity then says that the distance between two points in spacetime, ds, is:

ds^2 = (dt^2) - (dx^2)


Now, something I will not go into, Special Relativity says that 1 second is 300,000,000 meters in the temporal direction.
Now, for example, if you just sit where you are for one second then you have gone from:
t = 0, x = 0

to

t = 300,000,000 x = 0

So, dt = 300,000,000 and dx = 0. Putting this into the above formula gives:

ds = 300,000,000

So you have covered 300,000,000 meters in spacetime just by sitting on your chair.


Now let's say you went from here to the moon in two seconds. Then you would go from

t = 0, x = 0

to

t = 600,000,000, x = 363,104,000

Putting these numbers into the formula above we get:
ds = 477,656,241.64 meters

Now the surprising thing about this number is that it is not much different from the spacetime distance you cover when sitting on your chair. In fact, if you sat on your chair for two seconds you would cover a greater distance. So a counterintuitive fact:
You are closer, in spacetime to the moon two seconds from now than to your own chair two seconds from now.

Now try something faster than light, going to the moon in one second.
That gives:
dt = 300,000,000, dx = 363,104,000
If you put this into the formula you get an imaginary number. Now distances can only produce real numbers. An imaginary number basically means that there is no sensible notion of distance between you and that point in spacetime. It doesn't have a distance from you. (If you understand my meaning it has a distance of N/A, not a distance of 0.)

The formula above:
ds^2 = (dt^2) - (dx^2)
is called the metric. It basically tells you the distance between things. It tells you what geometry is like. For anything that would involve faster than light travel the rules of geometry produce an imaginary distance. Since you can only cover a real number distance, this means it is impossible to get.

By the laws of geometry this area of spacetime is cut off from you, it has no sensible geometric relationship with your position.

That is why you cannot travel faster than light. Not because you'll get infinitely heavy or anything, but because it's geometric nonsense.


*Of course our intuition is actually not even as advanced as Newtonian Mechanics, otherwise it wouldn't have taken Newton to come up with it.

very well explained.....cheers

The one thing that i always find tricky to understand is the measuring of speed when describing "traveling faster then light"....
If lets say I'm in space in a rocket and traveling away from the earth at 1000mph,then that speed can only be measured relative to the earth. Effectively me and the rocket are always stood still and everything else is either moving towards me or away from me at varying speeds.
Now if i hit the boost button then all I'm doing changing my speed relative to everything else...I'm not really moving....

Does anyone know what the greatest difference in speed between two objects in the universe is.......like the difference in speed between two stars on opposite sides of the universe...just curious

Enkidu

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I would like to mention the last part.

There are many reasons why you can't travel faster than light.

1. Is the mathematical nonsense(Courtesy of Sponsoredwalk)
2. Is the sheer amount of inertial mass you would gain.
3. Is the infinite energy you would need
And 4 is the geometroic nonsense you stated.

So there isn't just one.

It requires no energy to exist in a given reference frame, only move to move between reference frames. Also the only notion of mass that makes sense in relativity, invariant rest mass, does not change. Reason 1 is a consequence of reason 4. Geometry is the central reason, in fact it is central to relativity.

Enkidu

del88 wrote: »

Does anyone know what the greatest difference in speed between two objects in the universe is.......like the difference in speed between two stars on opposite sides of the universe...just curious

Less than the speed of light.

Capt'n Midnight

Enkidu wrote: »

It requires no energy to exist in a given reference frame, only move to move between reference frames. Also the only notion of mass that makes sense in relativity, invariant rest mass, does not change. Reason 1 is a consequence of reason 4. Geometry is the central reason, in fact it is central to relativity.

you need your E=mc2 energy to exist

anyone care to post up the total energy of a moving mass ?

Enkidu

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you need your E=mc2 energy to exist

anyone care to post up the total energy of a moving mass ?

True, but let's take that as a given. The point is that an object in an inertial frame moving close to the speed of light will, in another reference frame, it's rest frame, appear to be stopped. Hence there is no additional energy for moving fast.

The total energy of a moving mass will then be a frame dependent quantity.

Podge_irl

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

anyone care to post up the total energy of a moving mass ?

E^2 = (pc)^ + 4(mc^2)^2?

Does anyone know what the greatest difference in speed between two objects in the universe is.......like the difference in speed between two stars on opposite sides of the universe...just curious

There are a number of issues to address here but the most important one is that there is a massive difference between movement in space and expansion of space. One of the main reasons for believing in the inflationary theory of expansion of the universe is precisely because the opposite ends of the universe that we can see - two points that can not have been in causal contact - have all the same physical properties. Two bodies can not move away from each other at more than the speed of light, but there is no such restriction on space itself expanding which is something that confuses a lot of people.

Corkscrewkenny

Podge_irl wrote: »

There are a number of issues to address here but the most important one is that there is a massive difference between movement in space and expansion of space.

I have a handle on the reason for supposing dark matter exists. But, as I understand it, what dark energy is doing is creating space at all points in the universe. We don't feel the effect of this because the gravity environment in which we exist cancels the effect of dark energy.

I'll postulate what dark energy is by putting 2 theories together.

Gravity is a weak force because most of it's energy is leaking into other dimensions (that exist as per string theory). This energy is being returned by expanding space (the conservation of energy).

Anonymo

Corkscrewkenny wrote: »

I have a handle on the reason for supposing dark matter exists. But, as I understand it, what dark energy is doing is creating space at all points in the universe. We don't feel the effect of this because the gravity environment in which we exist cancels the effect of dark energy.

I'll postulate what dark energy is by putting 2 theories together.

Gravity is a weak force because most of it's energy is leaking into other dimensions (that exist as per string theory). This energy is being returned by expanding space (the conservation of energy).

I'm afraid you're a bit muddled up here. If what you were saying were truly correct then in our 3+1 dimensions we'd recognise some lack of conservation of energy. What you're talking about is a particular aspect of string theory called brane dynamics. In this the standard model forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism) are confined to live on a 3+1 dimensional brane. Gravity can live in the bulk which is 9+1 (or 10+1 in M theory) dimensional. This certainly could explain why gravity is weaker since it is 'leaking' into the other dimensions. There is no reason to return this force to the brane. There is a possible explanation for the inflationary period after the big bang that goes along the lines of: get two branes, one an anti-brane and the other a brane. Put the anti-brane near the top of a throat (which has larger radius than where the brane is). The brane gets attracted to the anti-brane and it's the motion throught the throat where it expands that looks like inflation. That's more or less the general idea.

By the way you're initial idea of information transfer by moving a mass is flawed. There is no instantaneous information transfer to a separate body. The whole body (neutron star) feels the push but since the energy of the push is transferred to kinetic energy within the neutrons this is necessarily less than the speed of light. The transfer of 'information' of the movement of the neutron star to proxima centauri will also occur at less than or equal to the speed of light.

Corkscrewkenny

Anonymo wrote: »

I'm afraid you're a bit muddled up here. If what you were saying were truly correct then in our 3+1 dimensions we'd recognise some lack of conservation of energy. What you're talking about is a particular aspect of string theory called brane dynamics. In this the standard model forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism) are confined to live on a 3+1 dimensional brane. Gravity can live in the bulk which is 9+1 (or 10+1 in M theory) dimensional. This certainly could explain why gravity is weaker since it is 'leaking' into the other dimensions. There is no reason to return this force to the brane. There is a possible explanation for the inflationary period after the big bang that goes along the lines of: get two branes, one an anti-brane and the other a brane. Put the anti-brane near the top of a throat (which has larger radius than where the brane is). The brane gets attracted to the anti-brane and it's the motion throught the throat where it expands that looks like inflation. That's more or less the general idea.

By the way you're initial idea of information transfer by moving a mass is flawed. There is no instantaneous information transfer to a separate body. The whole body (neutron star) feels the push but since the energy of the push is transferred to kinetic energy within the neutrons this is necessarily less than the speed of light. The transfer of 'information' of the movement of the neutron star to proxima centauri will also occur at less than or equal to the speed of light.

Thanks dude (or dudetta).

On your first point, I'll have to read it a few times and then on to wiki again.

On your second point, one of the best explanations in the thread. I'm now firmly convinced information transfer by this method at faster than light cannot, even in theory, be done. On second thoughts, I'm not exactly firmly convinced. We don't know everything, particularly as relativity and quantum mechanics don't apparently reconcile (why was the LHC built). Maybe in the sub-atomic world kinetic energy transfer by this method would be a different story. On third thoughts your probobly right.

FISMA

Careful ladies and gentlemen, you're playing very loose with definitions that are very specific.

For example, watch out when stating the "total" energy in the equation

This equation is for a "particle," not a rod, spaceship, or such. Herein, the particle has no internal structure. It cannot rotate, for example, thus you will not see rotational kinetic energy here.

Extended objects have more than kinetic and rest energies which is from what the above is derived.

For example, an extended object will have internal energies: thermal, chemical, nuclear, and so on.

Concisely: you cannot plug the mass of the space shuttle and its speed relative to the Earth into the above equation and get the sum total of all Energies inherent in the space shuttle. Watch the terminology of "total."

Now, they'll do this in Introductory Physics books, however, a close read will demonstrate they are treating the space ship as a point particle.

Finally, there's the assumption that the Potential Energy of the particle is zero.

On the topic of electricity, most people think that electricity travels close to the speed of light. Physicists do not.

Any peice of wire that does not have a potential difference applied across it has electrons in random motion. Theses charge carries are going pretty fast, about 10^6 m/s. However, there's no net effect of current due to the random motions.

Even in my room, the gas molecules move with large speeds, about 500m/s due to their thermal energies. Then why are we not "hurricaned" away? Because the average velocity of these random motions is, essentially, zero. Just like the free electrons in the wire with no potential difference across its ends.

There may be a breeze in my room, caused by pressure differences at two windows. Likewise, the free electrons in the metal (roughly one per atom) can also have an overall drift, when there's a potential difference applied across the conductor.

This drift speed is on the order of fractions of a millimeter per second: 10^-4 m/s or 10^-5 m/s for the usual copper wires. If you would like to see the calculation, I would be more than happy to oblige.

So don't think that any thing, or anything, is actually traveling close to the speed of light in the wire, not even close. The effect, may be that lights turn on almost instantaneously when the switch is flipped. But, nothing is traveling even close to c.

Finally, there's a bit of confusion with the speed of light and upper limits.

Einstein was saying that no thing, nothing with mass, may ever be accelerated to the speed of light. No thing (with mass), can go the speed of light or faster.

A lot of people conclude that Einstein believed that there isn't anything, even the massless, that can go faster than the speed of light. As if everything in the universe (with or without mass) is bound by the speed of light.

Not true.

Einstein held out that there may be a superluminal "realm" (for the lack of a better word) where faster than c was possible.

Finally, Einstein did believe that such a realm may exist, however, we would lack the ability to perceive it, analyze it, understand it, et al.

One may wonder if, mass is just another form of Energy (E=mc^2 - mass - energy proportionality), to what was Einstein speculating in this superluminal world.

Anonymo

FISMA wrote: »

Careful ladies and gentlemen, you're playing very loose with definitions that are very specific.

For example, watch out when stating the "total" energy in the equation

This equation is for a "particle," not a rod, spaceship, or such. Herein, the particle has no internal structure. It cannot rotate, for example, thus you will not see rotational kinetic energy here.

Extended objects have more than kinetic and rest energies which is from what the above is derived.

For example, an extended object will have internal energies: thermal, chemical, nuclear, and so on.

Concisely: you cannot plug the mass of the space shuttle and its speed relative to the Earth into the above equation and get the sum total of all Energies inherent in the space shuttle. Watch the terminology of "total."

...

It's a bit bizarre that you make this point since it was the gist of what I said above (albeit using far fewer words).

FISMA wrote: »

Finally, there's a bit of confusion with the speed of light and upper limits.

Einstein was saying that no thing, nothing with mass, may ever be accelerated to the speed of light. No thing (with mass), can go the speed of light or faster.

A lot of people conclude that Einstein believed that there isn't anything, even the massless, that can go faster than the speed of light. As if everything in the universe (with or without mass) is bound by the speed of light.

Not true.

Einstein held out that there may be a superluminal "realm" (for the lack of a better word) where faster than c was possible.

Finally, Einstein did believe that such a realm may exist, however, we would lack the ability to perceive it, analyze it, understand it, et al.

One may wonder if, mass is just another form of Energy (E=mc^2 - mass - energy proportionality), to what was Einstein speculating in this superluminal world.

Again you seem to have a penchant for being verbose, but I will try and comment on this. There are a couple of issues. First there is a period of superluminal expansion that occurs after the big bang. This is called inflation. I wrote a little of this in my earlier comment. There is no information transfer in this - essentially it's just an expansion of space. There are such thing as (proposed) superluminal particles. These are called tachyons. In GR if something has mass>0 then it has speed < c, if it has mass = 0 then it has speed = c (these are called photons or particles of light), so for something to have speed > c in this context you can guess that it must have mass < 0 (whatever that means). These are tachyons and none have been detected despite many searches. Usually they are looked on as a sign of instability. For instance it's the requirement to avoid tachyons that sets the spacetime dimension in string theory to be 10.

digme

Corkscrewkenny wrote: »

I'm an enthusiastic but uneducated, amateur theoretical physicist

If, THEORETICALLY, a pole made of, say, neutron star material was constructed and reached from earth to Proxima Centauri (4.2 light years away) and if the earth end was pushed, would someone at the Proxima Centauri end feel the result of the push almost instantaneously. THEREFORE can information move faster than light?

conciousness is instant isn't it?

Anonymo

digme wrote: »

conciousness is instant isn't it?

of course not. neurons pass information in the brain. electrical signals are limited by the speed of light.

FISMA

Digme,
Despite the incredibly authoritative statement

Anonymo wrote: »

of course not. neurons pass information in the brain. electrical signals are limited by the speed of light.

As a scientist, I disagree.

Consciousness is hardly settled science. I will put it far into the realm of metaPhysics at best. Philosophy or psychology, is where it ought to be.

What, scientifically, is consciousness? Can consciousness be discussed objectively, or is it purely subjective?

Is there a scientific test to prove this statement on consciousness?

Consciousness - Is it a particle? A wave? Perhaps, duality? What's it's equation? Any tests?

What is consciousness, as differentiated from thought, which is what the post sounds more like what is being described?

Can anyone offer up one equation throughout Chem or Physics that is a function of consciousness?

If this quote is colloquial or opinionated, then fair enough. But if we're going to be scientists, then play by the rules of science.

gentillabdulla

digme wrote: »

conciousness is instant isn't it?

Actually consciousness itself is more of a philosophical issue than scientific.

Well consciousness might be defined as

Sentience. It may be conscious in the generic sense of simply being a sentient creature, one capable of sensing and responding to its world (Armstrong 1981). Being conscious in this sense may admit of degrees, and just what sort of sensory capacities are sufficient may not be sharply defined. Are fish conscious in the relevant respect? And what of shrimp or bees?
Wakefulness. One might further require that the organism actually be exercising such a capacity rather than merely having the ability or disposition to do so. Thus one might count it as conscious only if it were awake and normally alert. In that sense organisms would not count as conscious when asleep or in any of the deeper levels of coma. Again boundaries may be blurry, and intermediate cases may be involved. For example, is one conscious in the relevant sense when dreaming, hypnotized or in a fugue state?
Self-consciousness. A third and yet more demanding sense might define conscious creatures as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware, thus treating creature consciousness as a form of self-consciousness (Carruthers 2000). The self-awareness requirement might get interpreted in a variety of ways, and which creatures would qualify as conscious in the relevant sense will vary accordingly. If it is taken to involve explicit conceptual self-awareness, many non-human animals and even young children might fail to qualify, but if only more rudimentary implicit forms of self-awareness are required then a wide range of nonlinguistic creatures might count as self-conscious.

From here... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#2.1

So it really cannot be given an answer until we truly define consciousness.

Sorry.:(

But if we take the term sentience above literally then consciousness is not instant and it is dependent on how the object interacts. So it's slower than light.

But again I have to state this is not really defined.

Anonymo

FISMA wrote: »

Digme,
Despite the incredibly authoritative statement


As a scientist, I disagree.

Consciousness is hardly settled science. I will put it far into the realm of metaPhysics at best. Philosophy or psychology, is where it ought to be.

What, scientifically, is consciousness? Can consciousness be discussed objectively, or is it purely subjective?

Is there a scientific test to prove this statement on consciousness?

Consciousness - Is it a particle? A wave? Perhaps, duality? What's it's equation? Any tests?

What is consciousness, as differentiated from thought, which is what the post sounds more like what is being described?

Can anyone offer up one equation throughout Chem or Physics that is a function of consciousness?

If this quote is colloquial or opinionated, then fair enough. But if we're going to be scientists, then play by the rules of science.

Well it looks like I should apologise to digme for coming across as authoritative on this since it appears I needed to define my meaning clearer. However, the sort of response this has generated by FISMA is disproportionate. Your mail is laden with hypocrisy and I was going to ignore it but since others such as gentillabdulla (thanks incidentally for the interesting post on what constitutes consciousness) have an interest I've decided to play.

Ok let's be clear, since this is a physics forum I understood consciousness as some passing of information. Yes thoughts. My previous post described that this must be limited by the method of information transfer in the brain - the neurons. Since this is done via electrical signals it must be less than the speed of light. I do not need to understand thoughts (or consciousness in this form) to make such an assertion. Consciousness in the other forms which do not involve information transfer (whatever that means) is not the topic for this forum. Yes I agree that falls into the realm of metaphysics. It is abundantly obvious that I was not referring to this (although why it should not be bounded by the natural world I don't know). I did not think my post was controversial. I haven't breached any science/religion divide or anything like that so the tone of your response, FISMA, is yet again bizarre. You seem to revel in making pedantic points in as unintelligible a manner as possible. I cannot believe you've accused me of not playing by the rule of science and of making a point that is philosophical in origin. I don't know your background but you present yourself as a scientist and censure me for not playing by the rules of science. I'd be worried if you really were a scientist.