Telepathy?

[AdMan]

Doesn't the faster-than-the-speed-of-light barrier only apply to objects with mass?

I'm no physicist, but I believe that Special Relativity says C is the maximum speed at which information can travel.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can explain further or how quantum entanglement fits in...

 

[Brian-M]

Doesn't the faster-than-the-speed-of-light barrier only apply to objects with mass?

No. Light has no rest mass, but you don't see light going faster than light.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can explain further or how quantum entanglement fits in...

I'm not particularly knowledgeable in physics, but I'm pretty sure you can't actually use quantum entanglement to transmit information.

(And even if you could, how would you get the other entangled particle into the brain of a alien hundreds of light years away?)

 

[jadebox]

[deleted]

 

[666]

[deleted]

I knew you were going to do that.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

(PS how do i get an avatar, i want to display my famous "hooded monk" avatar that's renowned throughout internetland)

So famous that I have no idea what you are talking about... Anyone else know about this renowned hooded monk?

 

[Musibrique]

Is telepathy magic or simply an undeveloped ability that we all have?

The problem with this question is that magic is a very subjective term. Magic is very ambiguous and what we define as magic is nothing but our perception of the universe. For example, if the technologies we have today magically existed in the 17 or 18 century, we would think that those technologies work by magic because we think it is impossible for such thing to happen. However, this is nothing but our ignorance. Our modern day knowledge tells us that these technologies don't work by magic, but via electromagnetic fields, etc.

To answer your question, I would have to say that maybe somewhere in the future telepathy may be considered normal (If it exists)

 

[davefoc]

The problem with this question is that magic is a very subjective term. Magic is very ambiguous and what we define as magic is nothing but our perception of the universe. For example, if the technologies we have today magically existed in the 17 or 18 century, we would think that those technologies work by magic because we think it is impossible for such thing to happen. However, this is nothing but our ignorance. Our modern day knowledge tells us that these technologies don't work by magic, but via electromagnetic fields, etc.

To answer your question, I would have to say that maybe somewhere in the future telepathy may be considered normal (If it exists)

I'm in the seriously doubting it category, but technologically assisted telepathy seems like a remote possibility. PET scans that can determine which part of the brain are firing could even now be used to implement a simple form of telepathy. Guy A does something that activates area 1 of his brain. That information is transferred to Guy B. Guy B might be said to have received a message telepathically from Guy A and this might be expanded further. Show Guy A a picture of a naked woman, transmit information about which sections of Guy A's brain are active and Guy B might be able to deduce what Guy A is looking at.

 

[Musibrique]

I'm in the seriously doubting it category, but technologically assisted telepathy seems like a remote possibility. PET scans that can determine which part of the brain are firing could even now be used to implement a simple form of telepathy. Guy A does something that activates area 1 of his brain. That information is transferred to Guy B. Guy B might be said to have received a message telepathically from Guy A and this might be expanded further. Show Guy A a picture of a naked woman, transmit information about which sections of Guy A's brain are active and Guy B might be able to deduce what Guy A is looking at.

Interesting

Do you know any studies regarding about this? I would much appreciate it.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Do you know any studies regarding about this? I would much appreciate it.

You mean using something like an fMRI to transmit information from one individual to another? I am not aware of anything like that (and keep in mind, these sort of things would still be limited by technology and physics, so the speed of that transfer would still be limited by the speed of light between points).

However, here are some links to our first few baby steps in at least electronically recording information in the brain.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

http://gizmodo.com/5922208/scientists-invent-mind+reading-system-that-lets-you-type-with-your-brain

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409705/mind-reading-with-functional-mri/

Not that we are carrying fMRI machines in our pockets or attached to our ballcaps...

 

[Beerina]

Is telepathy magic or simply an undeveloped ability that we all have?

Before suggesting a mechanism, first demonstrate the phenomenon even exists.

 

[Elind]

Does science know that telepathy doesn't exist?

Does science know that fairies don't exist?

 

[mike3]

We are discussing them - you are just not happy with how. You want a discussion that must assume telepathy is real. There is ZERO evidence for it being real, so discussion is limited to that point.

We do not randomly discuss , for example, "what would it be like if ghosts were all around us and we could see them faintly!" because that does not lead to any intelligent thinking or bring up any new knowledge to any of us. It is more the type of question, as is the OP, that an aspiring Science Fiction author without much knowledge or skill might throw out fishing for free story ideas (which would be worth roughtly their cost).

And again, if you read some of the threads in science, you would hopefully see many good - and some bad- examples.

So how do you go about gaining the necessary knowledge and skill to ask questions that lead to "intelligent thinking and new knowledge"?

 

[mike3]

You are not going to like this, but: we do not like to say that science knows things. Scientists tend to, but.... AND science does not say "x does not exist", it says "no evidence of any kind for the existence of X has been found to exist". To non-scientists, these apparently seem to mean the same thing. They do not and scientists know the difference. With no offence, you need to learn that difference.

But when it comes to actual practical matters, they're treated as the same. We don't go around acting like telepathy might exist just because we can't say "it doesn't exist" scientifically. In other words, when it comes to informing how we should act, "no evidence of any kind for the existence of X has been found to exist" and "x does not exist" might as well be the same thing.

 

[Elind]

Is telepathy magic or simply an undeveloped ability that we all have?

There is no magic and there is no telepathy, and I am told there are no unicorns either.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

There is no magic and there is no telepathy, and I am told there are no unicorns either.

Were you told verbally or did it seem to just pop into your mind?

 

[dafydd]

Were you told verbally or did it seem to just pop into your mind?

What's your guess?

 

[Soapy Sam]

My understanding of the etymology of "telepathy" is that it combines Greek roots meaning "distance" and "feeling" (often "suffering" in a medical context- hence pathology , I imagine.) Sympathy. Homoeop...well, maybe not.

Now I recall suffering on a frosty night trying to find (by naked eye) the Andromeda Nebula - and feeling rather pleased when I finally succeeded. So yes, in the interstellar (even intergalactic) context, telepathy does exist.

Shame it only works one way, but we have an actual universe, with actual galaxies.
And it's all free. Let's not be greedy.

 

[Elind]

Doesn't the faster-than-the-speed-of-light barrier only apply to objects with mass?

Given the following from Space.com:

"Dark energy is the name given to an unexplained force that is drawing galaxies away from each other, against the pull of gravity, at an accelerated pace.
Dark energy is a bit like anti-gravity. Where gravity pulls things together at the more local level, dark energy tugs them apart on the grander scale.
Its existence isn't proven, but dark energy is many scientists' best guess to explain the confusing observation that the universe's expansion is speeding up. Experts still don't know what's driving this force, but the quest to learn more about dark energy is one of cosmologists' top priorities."

What is the difference between dark energy and telepathic energy?

Silly question, given that you don't know the answer to the first part, and have had ample evidence of the non existence of the second.

What is the difference between talking squid and unicornes? Should I expect that you don't bother to answer in this thread as in previous ones?

 

[Elind]

Were you told verbally or did it seem to just pop into your mind?

Do you think you are being clever?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Do you think you are being clever?

I will share credit with the one (to remain anonymous) who sent the clever thought to me.

 

[barefootgoddess]

what are you calling magic exactly? Telepathy? It's a form of communication that is related to the physical individual ability to themselves communicate and or pick up words/thoughts/image's without vocal sound on their part. To digress a bit a person who can communicate with incorporeal entities is using a form of telepathy to hear and pick up what the average human can not. Is that supposed to be magic too. Only superstitious individuals buy into that disregarding something as magic because they don't understand. And then scoffing when science doesn't give them the answers they want or expect.

 

[Puppycow]

Again, telepathy has not been shown to exist. Nor have "incorporeal entities" (do you mean ghosts?).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Only superstitious individuals buy into that disregarding something as magic because they don't understand.

I think we can probably agree on that. People who believe a thing is magic and believe that thing exists would almost certainly fall into my definition of superstitious.

Round here, describing something as 'magic' is more usually an indication that you believe it doesn't exist.

 

[ehcks]

It sure is fun to see a thread over a year old topped, and exactly what I want to say now is what I already said in the thread over a year ago.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It sure is fun to see a thread over a year old topped, and exactly what I want to say now is what I already said in the thread over a year ago.

The psychic waves travel much slower than light or sound.

 

[Anerystos]

And if you want speculation, read some science fiction. People much smarter than some of us here have worked out all sorts of interesting scenarios.

I particularly like John Wyndham - Chrysalids, Midwich Cuckoos and (in particular) Chocky. Chocky explicity proposed that thought was faster than light "because thought has no mass".

Wyndham seemed to be particularly intrigued by telepathy, and weaves it well into the above three novels.

 

[Anerystos]

To answer your question, I would have to say that maybe somewhere in the future telepathy may be considered normal (If it exists)

You mean that your precognitive faculties are not working? Tut, tut.

 

[Anerystos]

And perhaps there's an invisible pink unicorn hiding out in my garage.

If it's invisible, how come you know it's pink? Is there a sign saying, "Here be an invisible unicorn. Moreover it is pink".

I've got an invisible red dragon in my garage. I take it out for walks every week. The neighbours think I'm barking, but that's the invisible green werewolf I take out as well.

 

[Brainiac2]

Isn't extrapolating from our detectable part of the universe to all of existence fallacious reasoning?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Isn't extrapolating from our detectable part of the universe to all of existence fallacious reasoning?

The fashion for writing "here be dragons" on unexplored parts of the map went into a bit of a decline several centuries ago.

Do you feel we might be making unreasonable assumptions about undetectable parts of the universe? Which parts do you have in mind?

 

[marplots]

Does science know that telepathy doesn't exist?

Our science doesn't know, but the aliens do.

 

[aleCcowaN]

There appears to be some evidence about banned, suspended and infamous forum members communicating telepathically with other forum members.

Or maybe it's just y, where

y = [same old, same old]^{Ted Cruz}

 

[aggle-rithm]

Isn't extrapolating from our detectable part of the universe to all of existence fallacious reasoning?

Some scientists have posited that if you get far enough away to a remote area of the universe, the laws of physics may not be the same. Of course, you would have to get really, REALLY far away. Farther than we can see. So it really doesn't matter to us.

 

[rcfieldz]

eyes closed and blindfolded

Interesting...if it pays well.

 

[Big Al]

Chocky explicity proposed that thought was faster than light "because thought has no mass".

I like John Wyndham's novels, too. But I don't consult him to keep abreast of the latest cosmological theories. He is way off the beam here - literally. Light has no (rest) mass either, and it obviously can't go "faster than light"

I don't actually like the term "the speed of light" as longhand for c. It isn't special because it is the speed that light goes at. It is the fastest speed possible in this universe. It is the cosmic speed limit.

In order to accelerate, an massive object needs to be supplied with accelerating energy. Once it reaches an appreciable fraction of the light, Newton starts to lose traction and special relativity begins to take over.

Some of the energy begins to go into mass (remember, E=mc²)

So now the object is heavier and harder to accelerate. So even more energy needs to be poured in, which makes the object even heavier and harder to accelerate further. This is a losing battle and has been proven with highly accelerated cosmic particles: they are rattling along at a fair old speed, but still very sub-light: but they hit like express trains, metaphorically speaking.

Even infinite energy cannot accelerate a massive object to the speed of light.

Now, the less rest mass an object has, the closer it can get to c, as the mass increase is related to rest mass. However, the best chance an object has to reach c is if it has zero rest mass.

Photons (the quanta of electromagnetism) meet this requirement (they do have relativistic mass because of their speed, but that's a different matter). So do gluons (the quanta of the strong nuclear force), but they are locked up tight in hadrons (protons and neutrons) and can't escape.

So the absolute Usain Bolts of the universe are photons. They can go fast as it is possible for anything to go, because they have no rest mass. Anything with mass is condemned to a slower speed.

In fact, a photon cannot go at any other speed.

There is a maximum speed limit in the universe, and only light can reach it.

 

[jakesteele]

How would telepathic communication occur faster than the speed of light?

Respectfully, I don't know **** about QM even though I read all I can about it but isn't that what "'spooky effects at a distance" (entangled particles?) is supposed to be about?

Respectfully,

Jake Steele

 

[Big Al]

Respectfully, I don't know **** about QM even though I read all I can about it but isn't that what "'spooky effects at a distance" (entangled particles?) is supposed to be about?

Respectfully,

Jake Steele

The thing about quantum entanglement is that it is supposed to be instant. You look at one of an entangled pair, and whenever someone looks at a property of the other one such as spin, it will be the opposite. It doesn't matter if the second one is a billion light years away, this effect is locked in instantly.

Now it may be said that this is a superluminal effect, but it really can't convey information.

You urgently need to convey information an alien on a distant planet.

You transmit a photon to him.

Now, at some predetermined "Now", the other person is going to look at the photon When he does so, he will find the a is either up or down. He will then know that when his human pen-pal looked at the photon's twin a short while ago ago, a particular quantum property such as spin was in the opposite state.

This is the big deal.

How can the alien and the human agree in the future that they will find each at a certain time one of an entangled pair of photons, knowing its twin is in the vicinity of the other's planet?

Even if there were some way of doing this, using some kind of quantum Cerebro, how do they identify it? Do the entangled quanta carry name labels or coloured ribbons?

Now, it seems to me that if the alien and his human pen-pal are already in contact, they already have some superluminal means of communication to be able to agree on a standard of simultaneity, so this all seems to be quite irrelevant, but in any case, what information has been transmitted?

"When my alien friend looked at his photon in the past, he measured a certain state."
"When my human friend looks at his photon in the future, I know he will find it in a certain state."

Big deal. I don't see how this phenomenon could possibly be used as a means of communication.

 

[davefoc]

...
Even infinite energy cannot accelerate a massive object to the speed of light.

...

This claim got me to thinking about what effect the expansion of the universe has on the acceleration of an object. Suppose you used your infinite supply of energy together with an infinite supply of time to arrange a string of accelerators in space. Then suppose you fired a particle from earth in the direction of this string of accelerators. Each of these accelerators has a velocity relative to earth and the other accelerators because of the expansion of space between earth and the accelerators. The farther an accelerator is from earth the faster it is moving away from earth. If the velocity of the accelerated particle is calculated relative to earth it could have a velocity faster than the speed of light relative to the earth after it has passed through some of the accelerators.

 

[Brian-M]

I'm in the seriously doubting it category, but technologically assisted telepathy seems like a remote possibility. PET scans that can determine which part of the brain are firing could even now be used to implement a simple form of telepathy. Guy A does something that activates area 1 of his brain. That information is transferred to Guy B. Guy B might be said to have received a message telepathically from Guy A and this might be expanded further. Show Guy A a picture of a naked woman, transmit information about which sections of Guy A's brain are active and Guy B might be able to deduce what Guy A is looking at.

Okay... you have two people in brain-scanners, with one person transmitting and the other receiving.

But how is the information being transmitted?

It's being transmitted between the machines (and the people in the machines) electrically, not telepathically.

But why a PET scan? Why not insert a receiver/transmitter inside a people's brains? (I think our level of technology is already advanced enough to do this for real.) People would be able to communicate with each-other via Morse Code just as if they had telepathy. But they'd be communicating by radio, not actually by telepathy.

 

[Kathie Bondar]

I like John Wyndham's novels, too. But I don't consult him to keep abreast of the latest cosmological theories. He is way off the beam here - literally. Light has no (rest) mass either, and it obviously can't go "faster than light"

I don't actually like the term "the speed of light" as longhand for c. It isn't special because it is the speed that light goes at. It is the fastest speed possible in this universe. It is the cosmic speed limit.

In order to accelerate, an massive object needs to be supplied with accelerating energy. Once it reaches an appreciable fraction of the light, Newton starts to lose traction and special relativity begins to take over.

Some of the energy begins to go into mass (remember, E=mc²)

So now the object is heavier and harder to accelerate. So even more energy needs to be poured in, which makes the object even heavier and harder to accelerate further. This is a losing battle and has been proven with highly accelerated cosmic particles: they are rattling along at a fair old speed, but still very sub-light: but they hit like express trains, metaphorically speaking.

Even infinite energy cannot accelerate a massive object to the speed of light.

Now, the less rest mass an object has, the closer it can get to c, as the mass increase is related to rest mass. However, the best chance an object has to reach c is if it has zero rest mass.

Photons (the quanta of electromagnetism) meet this requirement (they do have relativistic mass because of their speed, but that's a different matter). So do gluons (the quanta of the strong nuclear force), but they are locked up tight in hadrons (protons and neutrons) and can't escape.

So the absolute Usain Bolts of the universe are photons. They can go fast as it is possible for anything to go, because they have no rest mass. Anything with mass is condemned to a slower speed.

In fact, a photon cannot go at any other speed.

There is a maximum speed limit in the universe, and only light can reach it.

I know all that. I also know that telepathy is different and that it must exist in some other level hitherto unknown to us, and that my brain can generate it and that your brain can understand it.