So, apparently the scientists managed to succesfully teleport the states of the qubits, but fuck me, i have only very very misty idea, what that means and no idea, what are the implications of this discovery...
heres the link:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/first-light-wave-quantum-teleportation-achieved-opens-door-to-u/#disqus_thread
can somebody in laymans terms explain what happened and what it means for the future? Did they basically dicovered the Heisenbergs compensator from Star Trek?
and magnetic fields are made of light... and since light can't escape...
I used to think that was a good show, but now... they are taking alot of pseudo-science and advocating it as science.
Truth be told no one knows what goes on inside of the event horizon of a black hole, which is why theorists generalize black holes alot. But if stuff is falling into a black hole, it is warms up due to friction and compression. This causes magnetic fields to form along the poles of rotation. Then, streams of particles get caught up in the twisted field and shoot right out the poles at speeds very close to the speed of light. These are x-rays and are the telltale sign of a black hole. And that is how you get a magnetic field on the outside.
But in general, black holes are quite simple things, so theorists like to 'play' with them to try to coax the difficult stuff out of them.
Also, fyi GR says that gravity is the bending of spacetime due to the presence of energy. If this is concentrated enough, and a quantum fluctuation occurs, that could cause that space expansion value i was talking about to become big enough to create more space, and essentially duplicate the big bang, all within an event horizon of what we would call a black hole from our perspective. But once again, no one knows what goes on inside a black hole.
Fair enough, but if black holes evaporate, then I don't think you can quite say that they are separate universes... And I've only ever seen like three episodes of Through the Wormhole...
Actually Science Daily is the best "news science" site I have found. I read it several times a day usually and new topics there appear 3-4 times every 24 hrs at least. there are a few others but it is the most useful 'all around" I have found and it stays very current.
Quantum computer stuff has seen huge breakthroughs in just the past year--it's mind boggling.
Quantum Computers, Genetic Manipulation and Metamaterials are the big things right now suddenly just popping--really interesting.
Does this mean we might be inside of a black hole ourselves and what we actually see as an universe is the interior of a blackhole behind the event horizon?
It has been suggested before, but I think that theory was more or less abandoned after an experiment last year iirc that made it extremely unlikely.
No one knows what goes on inside a black hole. The laws of physics break down due to gravity being so strong and affecting things on the quantum level. You need both these theories to be able to say what's going on, and right now they are not exactly compatible (there are limited interpretations and some ideas such as String Theory that may/may not work).
Black hole evaporation is due to quantum fluctuations on the outside of the black hole. All around us, particles temporarily pop into existence with it's anti-particle, then they collide and disappear again. These are known as virtual particles (In the sense that they aren't "real". "Real" particles have positive energy and follow energy conservation laws. Virtual particles temporarily violate these laws). This happens because everything in quantum mechanics has to be qualified with 'on average'. So theres nothing in empty space.... on average. But Stephen Hawking realized that one particle of the pair might be close enough to get sucked into a black hole while the other is able to escape. This then makes the escaped particle real, and is known as Hawking radiation. The trouble is: where did the new particle's energy come from? Well, it has to come from the black hole. So, it evaporates, very slowly. So slowly that no ordinary black hole could have evaporated yet, and wont for another several billion years.
Btw, I hope no one takes my statements offensively. I just find this stuff interesting and will take any excuse to talk about it
I've found that interesting as well... Actually though... I just thought of something.. During evaporation, the black hole doesn't just have to lose the mass of the particle that escaped, it has to lose the mass of the particle that it ate as well.. This may seem petty, but now I've got this idea in my mind of somehow creating a miniature black hole (emphasis on somehow) and as the flux around it produces virtual particles, some will get eaten while others will not... but the mass of the black hole would have to decrease... I suppose what is possible is that the particle that gets eaten does not in fact have mass, but rather negative mass upon entering the black hole and thus accounting for the loss in energy because the difference in mass needs to be more or less instance and there's a big difference between when something hits the singularity and when it falls in. Beyond that, the singularity and the event horizon aren't AFAIK entangled in any way, so it seems as if when a virtual particle is eaten, its mass becomes negative...
I guess it could have been negative all along... I've never been clear on whether virtual particles are just out of the blue or photons that suddenly interact with the Higgs field and pop out as particles for a moment. If they are from photons, then they'd have to both have positive mass under normal circumstances, but if they are just from the blue, then one could be negative so that it nets zero... I know there are some logic gaps in this theory, but I hope you can understand what I'm driving at...
Something I thought of just now... I don't think it's possible to actually hit the singularity... Ever.. When you're going 99.999999999999999999999999999 etc % the speed of light when you're a meter from it, time will be dilated so much that you honestly probably will just be more or less stuck there until the black hole evaporates enough that the event horizon would eventually disappear. I'm not saying you'd survive it, but I think your particles would at least get ejected...
The top part: You understand this process pretty well. The particle pair are entangled. They have a net energy of zero, so I think that is all I have to say to make that make sense to you. As far as virtual particles, as far as I am aware, it doesnt have anything to do with the Higgs field or photons. Every kind of particle can and does pop into existence, but are quickly annihilated. Interestingly, this is a key part of how fields work (and theres more of those than you think). Think about this for a moment: An electron lets other particles in the area know that it's charge is there by emitting a photon. Now, if it is constantly sending out photons in all directions (so that it is like a field), dont you think it would run out of energy very quickly? What happens instead is the electron periodically emits the photon instead. So, is the field periodic? Not really. Whats going on? The photon 'rides' the sea of virtual photons, essentially spreading the charge of the electron around a larger area. Actually, the electron is constantly absorbing/emitting photons. The original photon pairs up with a virtual photon, making a chain reaction that makes the average push that the 2nd electron receives work in away consistent with field theories.
The bottom part: well, the singularity is actually hypothetical. It's kind of inside the black hole. You see, there is a point at which not even light can escape (the event horizon). Now, you can fall into the event horizon and not notice the difference, you just don't know that you can never leave. What exactly goes on beyond the event horizon is where we dont know what is going on. From what I know, I would say that you're right, you would be pancaked into a 2-dimensional surface surrounding the singularity. Essentially, the black hole would build up layers (the layers im not sure about, but it makes sense to me), and so the distance from the surface might increase as more stuff falls in after you, but you havent made any headway in getting closer to the singularity (if there is an actual singularity. Some claim there isnt one). Regardless, physics as we know it now breaks down inside the event horizon, so nothing definitive can be said.
Well, you can't get out of a black hole normally.. I'm saying that you basically could if the event horizon receded enough from evaporation, but that would be near heat death of the universe, so it's not like it would be anything to come back to... My point was that as you approach the speed of light, time experienced approaches zero. that means that it will take an infinite time to reach the singularity relative to the outside universe, during which time the event horizon will have receded to nothingness.
Though I agree with the idea of things piling up. Of course, I see it more as rings, but in the end, yes, same concept. It's just that at such insanely high distortions of space-time, any vector that puts your net direction even slightly off course with the singularity is going to send you into one heck of an orbit once you hit the event horizon...
Back to virtual particles.. I read recently that scientists were going to be performing an experiment soon to determine whether or not antimatter actually has positive mass. Apparently everyone always assumed it did but nobody ever actually tested it. But that's a side note.. If they are entangled then they both have positive and negative masses, but why therefore is the one that escapes the black hole always positively massed? Apparently, the event horizon breaks entanglement, which I find odd given that entanglement almost seems to be a higher process in the "code" of the universe than light so I wouldn't expect it to be broken by an event horizon. I mean, the negative mass of the one that gets eaten makes sense, but why does the negative mass always go towards the black hole? Is the universe trying to equalize the gravitational rift in it and this is really just some act of entropy over the course of billions of years or does it simply just not like negative mass so it shoves it in the one place it doesn't have to deal with it? After all, if something had negative mass, then I'd expect that to be the thing that would escape as it would more than likely fall up.
Another question I've always had.. How does AM/M actually annihilate? I mean, obviously, they have opposite charges, and I know they make one freaking powerful gamma ray when they do, but why? They are only supposed to annihilate with their opposite, but could a positron for instance react with a neutron? Neutrons are after all composed of an electron, antineutrino, and a proton, so...
On the particle information, Hawking speculates that singularities contain the quantum information of all the particles they "eat"--even after the particle itself is lost--though he has revised this somewhat and there is a lot of debate about how this information can be retained and whether or not it also evaporates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)
Here's a couple of articles that you mind find interesting (one old and one new). The first (newer) has to do with outlining experiments to detect bubble universe collisions and the second is a theoretically possible way to create ftl travel (or the equivalent thereof). The bubble universe(s) we might be within/encapsulate wouldn't be the same as a singularity beneath the event horizon.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507175838.htm
FYI, I think this year they just completed an experiment that shows antimatter counterparts have comparitive masses to matter.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110727161135.htm
Neutrons are not made of an electron, antineutrino and a proton. However, you can get those out of a neutron through beta decay. Neutrons are made of an up quark and 2 down quarks. The quarks do have electrical charge (up = +2/3, down = -1/3. The third is purely due to the long history of calling electrons -1 and protons +1). Essentially, what happens is a down quark converts to an up quark by emitting an electron and neutrino. You could also do the opposite, known as inverse beta decay (this is pretty difficult, if I recall, due to the rare neutrino interaction. But I'm pretty sure this is how they detect neutrinos).
If you are asking what the force is that causes AM/M annihilation, there is none. They are basically waves of opposite amplitudes. So the electron is the crest and the positron the trough. when they meet, they cancel each other out. However, these are not virtual particles. They both have energy. That energy has to go somewhere. E=mc^2, so something out of the quantum foam gains positive energy and this is a gamma ray.
As for antimatter experiments, the deal is that the LHC is making full anti-atoms of hydrogen (anti-proton orbited by a positron) and trapping them for long periods of time (I think they had some for 15 minutes). Since full anti-atoms do not naturally exist in nature, the idea is to look for differences in the way anti-matter behaves as opposed to matter. We know there has to be some difference due to the fact that all around us we have matter, and pretty much no anti-matter. The big bang should have made equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, so some crucial difference must have allowed only matter to survive. So, anti-matter isn't really all that special. It's rare and has the opposite electrical charge, that's all. So, anti-matter can't have negative mass. That would be a different class of anti-charge (thinking of mass as a charge) that I believe is known as exotic matter. So far, none has been found. Also, positrons are fairly frequent in the natural world, so it's safe to assume that would have been measured fairly quickly after their discovery. Random interesting fact: Positronium = positron orbited by an electron. I think they might have just made anti-helium or anti-deuterium somewhere too, so I think that covers the positron interaction with a neutron.
Personally, I think that the classification of which particles are group together and called matter and which are anti-matter might be messed up. I kinda think our world is a mix of matter and antimatter, the fact is something on average gained traction that caused the current assortment of particles, however some are matter, and some are anti-matter. Classifying 'the stuff we dont see' as anti-matter is kinda misguided I think, but what do I know?
You're probably about to jump me right now. "Ah ha! But you said virtual photons pop into existence, and annihilate each other! However, photons do not have electric charge!" That's right. Furthermore, is there an anti-photon? No, the photon is it's own antiparticle. It's a very fine line as to what is a virtual particle and what is a "real" particle. The only real way to separate them is to say that real particles is what our instruments pick up. Virtual particles are undetectable. Photons can interact with each other via virtual-electrons. You can probably tell by this point that any calculation about anything could involve an infinite number of these virtual particles, and that's true. It's a problem, but I digress: the best way of thinking about it without going through an infinite hall of mirrors is to just assume that a virtual photon and a virtual anti-photon (just use the crest/trough idea) pop into existence, and pop back out. You can wrap your head around that. Otherwise you got a chicken and the egg scenario. The way around that is renormalization; thats french for cheating, but accepted because no one knows how to get to the answer.
Also, some people think that all photons are virtual. I mean, if you think about it, you can't actually measure a photon directly. In regards to the negative mass, it's because the other particle escapes that it becomes real. They have a built-in self destruct. If one finds a way around that, it has to take energy from somewhere, and since they're entangled, the one falling in transfers energy out. It does seem like voodoo, but that's the best way I can explain it. Interestingly, this also pulls information out of the black hole. So, during evaporation, you would come out of the black hole bit by bit. When it evaporates completely, its not like everything it sucked in is suddenly released. The black hole is slowly reduced in size and mass until theres not enough mass to make it a black hole anymore. A large amount would theoretically be released then.
Tbh, I don't think FTL travel is possible for humans... or anything large, really. Teleportation seems likely, but you know... you have to get there first to build a transporter. It wouldnt be like star trek where theres no machine on the ground (although it could be possible with some clever engineering, I suppose). But warp drive? You'd need loads of energy. That article claims you'd need to convert the mass of jupiter into pure energy to do it. That seems low. Most of what I read claims 3 suns of energy. And you cant just make energy out of nothing. You have to collect something and do something to it in a uniform way to get energy out of something.
And this I think is an impossible obstacle. Assuming you had a warp drive, to power it you would have to destroy the entire solar system, and I dont think that would be enough either. Now, you might say, "maybe later someone will figure out a way to do it with less energy". Well, here's the thing: we know how much space bends due to energy, and forgetting how the hell we could construct the thing without making black holes or whatever, I just dont see how you could reduce the energy. you need x amount of warping in front of the ship, and y amount of warping behind the ship (also, these tend to need negative energy, which is messed up). If you significantly reduce the energy, you significantly reduce the warping effect. And you need alot of warping effect. Even if you could get a drive going that runs at the speed of light, it would take you years to get anywhere. Now, nanobots.... maybe.... idk.
The wave-bubble proposal for FTL is worth consideration as it is theoretically harmonius with all the theories of space we have and doesn't violate them. Converting a mass the size of Jupiter to energy--heh, that may take awhile.
The matter-antimatter mix theory isn't resonating with me in any way. It just sounds contrived. Fact is, I don't think we understand reality well enough to fully understand matter and energy.
As to particles appearing and vanishing and explanations thereof, there is another entire dimension of possibility there--the overlap of universes and intrusions into and extrusions from, respectively.
There may be localized areas of space where extra-dimensional/universal effects contract or expand it, where energy manifests as a result of or directly from the intrusion of another dimension/universe and it's possible there are areas where universal laws and constants are blurred or even overridden by such conditions.
Gravity is one of the candidates for a force in this universe affected by or even emanating from or leaking to another universe. Singularities are another example of violations in space-time that allow an aperture to other forms of reality.
With an infinite number of universes and multiple dimensions as multipliers of possibilities, there is a larger reality we haven't even conceived off beyond the small one we know now.
When I said "made of," I meant "decays into." I know that it's not like you just took the three of them and smooshed them together. I know the half life of neutrons (when unexposed to exceptional forces) is twelve minutes.
Antifusion? I hope they get some good data out of that because that screams inefficiency to me lol. Obviously they wouldn't be trying to make energy out of that, but still.. That's two processes that are notoriously energy intensive.
And I wasn't going to jump on you there... Anti-neutrons and neutrons annihilate and both have net charges of zero. They just have opposite spins. I've never heard of photons described as virtual, though I see the reasoning. On the other hand, I have heard of them described as their own anti-particles.
Teleportation in one sense is possible, but in another, it's not for macro-scale things.. Theoretically, you could "teleport" someone using entanglement, but you'd need machines on both ends, and a replica of you would simply be reconstructed on the other end.
As for warp drives, they do cause fundamental problems because they require massive amounts of mass and negative mass. I'm aware of this. Seeing as how we've never seen anything with negative mass, that makes it rather difficult.
As a general rule, I do know the majority of the stuff you're saying... I'm the kind of person that in seventh grade went to the library and checked out (and read) the most technical quantum mechanics book he could find just for the heck of it.
well, other universes are one of those tricky things. Theres all kinds of possibilities, but mostly due to our lack of knowledge. There probably are other universes. Whether they can affect us or not is a big if.
I dont know that warp-drives are completely harmonius with all theories of space. To get anywhere fast, you have to have pretty significant bending of spacetime. Lets say you had the energy to do it. Now, I'm not sure here as I havent gotten through the nitty gritty math details yet, but I would think that much energy concentrated would collapse to a black hole.
This is just considering the spacetime aspect of it. I have stated my argument against it for the energy side of the equation. My third objection would be the requirement in all warp drives that space contracts in front (positive energy), and expands behind the ship (negative energy). Negative energy? That's something that doesnt seem to exist. If it does, its likely to be very very rare, and I doubt you could get enough. The only way I could see around this would be some way of manipulating the vacuum energy, which would also greatly reduce the energy requirement. However, so far there are no indications that you could do anything like this even on the small scale. Barring all these objections, it seems quite difficult, but not theoretically impossible. Obviously, there are other practical objections, but I don't want to come off like I'm attacking you; I wouldn't be anywhere near sure about other issues. The three I listed above are the major reasons why I am in the no-FTL camp.
No offense intended. As I said, I'm still reading all those books and teaching myself calculus so that I can get more into it (interestingly, theres some calc and alot of matrix math in QM, plus lots of new symbols purely to confuse people ). Still, you ask questions and I do my best to answer it as plainly as I can.
Also, I really wouldnt call it anti-fusion as you are constructing an element from its constituents, but seeing as there isnt a name that I'm aware of..... o...k...ay...? or were you meaning the inverse beta-decay?
I mean, there is dark energy, but that's about as close to negative energy as you're going to get...
If you did it right and didn't end up with a black hole in front of you and a white hole behind, you still have to contend with the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Now, since it's a warp drive, you can get around momentum because you're moving the space more than yourself, so you actually aren't going that fast. As for energy... Well... If you could somehow manipulate gravity, you could probably create small black holes from which you could harvest negative mass particles as involved with evaporation.
Conservation of energy requires that it all be distributed in the end... Perhaps if you created a planar event horizon or something to that end that would shove negative mass virtual particles behind you and keep positive mass virtual particles in front of you, you *might* be able to pull it off.
It would certainly be easier on the micro scale than the macro. Fire a bunch of lasers at each other to create a very short lived, tiny black hole (as in, smaller than an atomic nucleus) You might be able to pull it off somehow as the flux of the space around the event horizon itself might let it escape for whatever reason.
I bet though that there would probably be other ways to split them. Perhaps a stupendously powerful electromagnetic field or something to that effect (or perhaps just a really powerful laser). Actually the laser bit does kind of make sense... Optical tweezers can be used on small things... Make them smaller. I know it's far from easy, but I bet there's some way to do it. And mentioning nanites, honestly, that might be the only way to actually "harvest" negative mass would be trillions of microscopic robots for that very purpose. I'm not saying by any means that it would be simple, but...
Actually... If separated by something other than gravity, you might just end up with two real particles that are farther apart, but still both have masses of zero. Interesting thought though...
I'm in the "possibly eventually FTL" camp simply because of how many fundamental processes in the universe we don't understand. If we had a working theory of quantum gravity that specifically disproved FTL in all forms, I'd be inclined to agree. Until we do advance in our knowledge of things like singularities, the nature of light itself, and dark energy, I'm going to say that it might be possible a thousand years or more from now.
There are a few ways one could get from one point to another in manners that occur more rapidly than light speed travel allows. All of them of course have insurmountable problems with energy requirements and control due to our current levels of understanding and technology--but the methods do exist and are feasible.
As to the tricky things--I think an understanding of multidimensional and eventually multiuniversal "physics" is the future (if we have one).
At present, we tend to avoid them because of ignorance and lack of data but I think they are the key to everything we now consider impossible.
Taking a science fiction construct, that's what I would say the "Technomages" were doing in Babylon 5.
Imagine if we learned not just how to bend our space but to thin it or make it permeable or semi-permeable in varieties of directions. We could "leak" or "siphon" ultrauniversal effects into our universe in ways that allowed us to exceed (locally) the limitations of this one. I don't see this as far-fetched at all...just far-future. Learning to do this could give us access to energy or materials that are currently considered impossible.
Explaining what happened on the other side of the Big Bang was always considered completely impossible and even theorizing was considered so--now we actually have theories and proposed testable experiments to demonstrate and explain aspects of it.
If our universe is one of a sea of universes and if our own universes dimensional connectivity is only a fractional portion of connectivity is possible, the sky is the limit--anything is possible. That's exactly the point (in a broader way) of Steven Hawkings recent theories. Essentially, infinite chance provides infinite possibility.
Nothing is completely and fully "impossible".
Lol that's true... If we were to tap into mutlidimensional processes, then yes, we probably would have unlimited energy assuming that there are an infinite number of universes.
I don't know... I'm pretty skeptical about those ideas. I think natural processes are far grander than anything we will ever achieve, and so far, there are no indications that anything of that magnitude occurs in nature.
As far as interpreting certain physics as extra-universal, I am also not in that camp. But, obviously, I could be wrong. Theres nothing conclusive there. Now, do I think there are other universes? Yes, it makes sense. However, there is no reason to assume any kind of connection between them. There might be ponds connected by creeks, but there are also ponds with no creeks. I'm fine with there being theories out there that talk about other universes, but if you say we are connected to them, there has to be evidence not explainable by intra-universal physics.
Btw, you know Ried Richards made a giant gun by sapping energy from all the dimensions/universes (the way they disribed it, it was hard to tell which they actually meant) in order to stop galactus. This was in the ultimate universe.
There are certain things that are impossible, knowing what we know now and/or ever will/could know. Calculating the last digit of pi, having i apples, knowing with 100% accuracy where an electron will be and its momentum at a precise time, pigs flying (by themselves). This is by no means a definative list, but I dont wish to destroy your optimism; This leaves plenty of room for all sorts of wierd possibilities. And, yes, if you include what goes on inside other universes, all that I stated above are possible as well.
However, all thats gone on in these last few posts seems to prove my original point: for some reason, everyone only wants to talk about the fringe-might-be-possible-but-no-one-knows-so-we-all-can-argue-about-it theories. There was a good discussion going on about what we do know, which is what I find most facinating. The problem with the fringe stuff is that we dont know anything about it, which allows the television shows to go into great depth on the subject purely because the subject has no depth to begin with, making everyone aware of these unproven ideas. But the average person is pretty stupid about the stuff we do know. They've heard about dark matter, but I doubt most understand what E=mc^2 means. They just think of Einstein and how he was a genius. They don't know anything. I like to understand how things work, so I get into discussions with my dad (who's HVAC) about how an air conditioner works. I go through and interpret what he's saying all the way to the quantum mechanical scale, just for kicks. Because it's interesting to see the same world differently.
Well, it's still largely theoretical, so while not really "fringe" it still falls into the category of "maybe, but unlikely."
Ugh, you guys respond too quickly! I don't have time to reply to everything I want to! So, I'll just respond to two (well, three) things:
No it wasn't . I mean, yes, there were people who disagreed with quantum mechanics, but they were generally the "fringe." I'm guessing that right about now you're going to mention Einstein's "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice," comment. He was not refering to quantum mechanics as a whole (he helped found QM) but specifically that there are things in the universe that are completely random. He accepted for the most part the other parts of QM, just not that.
It's somewhat related to what I was saying before, where you can't say "oh, we were wrong before so we must be wrong now." It just doesn't work that way.
As for what goes on past the event horrizon of black holes, physicists generally have a pretty good idea. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with "spaghettification" . Where the physics break down is specifically at the singularity (it's a flat disk if the black hole it rotating). Relativity is good for describing massive things and QM is good for describing very small things. The singularity of a black hole has the unique problem of being both very massive and very tiny, hence the breakdown of conventional physics. Of course, there's no way to ever prove that the predictions about the inside of a black hole are correct, but on the other hand, there's nothing to say that they're wrong either.
Also, normal, stellar-mass black holes evaporate so slowly that they actually gain enough mass from the background radiation of the universe to off-set it (and in fact they grow from just the radiation).
Speak for yourself
I disagree, but I suppose its a matter of opinion. The fact that I see something directly in front of me and it seems like the light came directly to me, but it has in fact simultaneously traveled everywhere in the universe to get to my eye, traveling by way of virtual particles popping into and out of existence, and all the while most of the light between me and the object is invisible..... thats just far out there.
There ain't no sci-fi movie or anything that compares to that in my mind. I would much rather hear more about that then about how one might actually construct a lightsaber. I'm not saying no one should care about those things. I just think too many people pass by the natural world that we do understand and dont appreciate our current understanding. They like the theories that say 'everything we know is wrong! it's really this way, but we cant test it yet!'. I guarantee you that if QED is ever proven to be wrong, its not 10% wrong or even 1% wrong... It'd be a small, small fractional percentage wrong. Science is about better and better approximations, not the little guy over-turning the established order. Although that does happen from time to time, it shouldn't be the main attraction like it's made out to be.
Actually, have you ever been on a physics discussion forum? This is actually a far better discussion than anything I've seen there. Just a bunch of wack-jobs high on something claiming time doesnt exist or that the world =1 or some mumbo jumbo. I dont have the patience for that kind of troll.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
