MIT scientists have found fractionalized excitations in the spin-liquid state of a kagome-lattice an
57 replies, posted
I can confirm that this title was included in the examples section in the "Handling Discoveries" chapter of [I]Science for Movie Script Writers[/I]
I had to memorize and burn it. Asking why may result in adverse consequences for you and your kin.
maybe you guys could actually look up some of this shit instead of coming into every thread about new scientific discoveries and saying "LOL I don't understand it!!! xD"
I heard somewhere that quantum entanglement can't be used to transfer information because the only things that are linked between the two particles are states and attributes that we can't change (like the position of gluons or some shit) Also it violates some laws about information etc.
I hope all that is proved wrong though, instant communication opens up so many new doors for humanity, like long distance space travel, incredibly fast communications and finally, I'll be able to play against europeans with less than 400 ping.
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;38917635]I heard somewhere that quantum entanglement can't be used to transfer information because the only things that are linked between the two particles are states and attributes that we can't change (like the position of gluons or some shit) Also it violates some laws about information etc.
I hope all that is proved wrong though, instant communication opens up so many new doors for humanity, like long distance space travel, incredibly fast communications and finally, I'll be able to play against europeans with less than 400 ping.[/QUOTE]
The sending of information and the receiving of information at different locations happening at the same time (in a Minkowski spacetime), violates [B][I]causality[/I][/B] in the sense that it is defined in special relativity, seeing as nothing, not even information, can physically travel faster than light. At least that is what physicists agree on, even with known phenomena such as quantum entanglement.
Que argument about quantum communication breaking causality/no communication theorem in 3...2...1...
[editline]21st December 2012[/editline]
Well, maybe in a few pages at least
Well if it does break some theories then we have our work cut out for us.
Hmmmm
where's my crowbar
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;38917690]Well if it does break some theories then we have our work cut out for us.[/QUOTE]
That's a good thing though. When you find a phenomenon that contradicts your previous notions it's just a sign that scientific headway is being made.
[QUOTE=TonyP;38910019][IMG]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120119110821/inuyasha/images/c/cb/Kagome_Episode_167.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
shit i came here to post just that
and you did it from your android device, too
godspeed to you
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38917828]That's a good thing though. When you find a phenomenon that contradicts your previous notions it's just a sign that scientific headway is being made.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I'm as hopeful. Some things, like causality in many cases, are things which it doesn't seem easy or indeed even possible to circumvent....
You may cite wormholes as an example of how this could be "technically" circumvented, but creating those may not even be possible, or at the very least could be immensely beyond our capabilities to do for a long, long time.
I don't know though, I'm not a physicist, I'm a high school student.
But i think the main thing entanglement suggests is that there is a relationship (between particles, space, time, or energy) not dependent upon the laws of physics as we know, and in my mind that would be due to the relation between objects in a fundamentally different manner, dimensionally speaking. For instance, that two particles can communicate instantly is said to be impossible due to the fact that information cannot travel at the speed of light. I propose that our perception of an objective reality anchored by 4 dimensions (space (3) and time (1)) is not the only or is only part of reality. If this is at all the case then instant communication of information does not necessarily require any time, if even additional energy.
Furthermore supposing this is the case, it could be suggested that all entanglement-affective particles of familiar attributes are simultaneously interconnected. If it can be done with no additional energy put into the recieving (and thus the "emitting") particle, then it must be a certain arrangement of the existing energy (information) associated with the particle(s)[In the sense that information could be determined by the conditions of the arrangement of the energy]. Furthermore this implies that many states of arrangement exist independently of the particle and/or the energy simultaneously.
This is just what I've come to theorize through very limited pseudoknowledge of advanced physics concepts and the use of drugs.
[QUOTE=zzzz;38917850]I don't think I'm as hopeful. Some things, like causality in many cases, are things which it doesn't seem easy or indeed even possible to circumvent....
[/QUOTE]
Causality is more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one, the role it plays in science is superficial and only really exists by proxy. It may just be that causality seems like the strict and infallible order of things because it's [I]inconvenient[/I] for most events and interactions to not abide by it, ergo they don't do it; because most "causes" prefer to take the simplest and shortest route to any given effect. As such, it may just be that we haven't found phenomenons that violate it because such phenomenons are incredibly rare in every day life.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;38909583]This is pretty interesting..
A crystal structure, where it's constituent electrons are constantly changing.
Nature is one crazy bitch![/QUOTE]
That's what I thought.
And I second this statement:
[QUOTE]Really, though, the most exciting thing about quantum spin liquids is that they’re completely new, and thus we ultimately have no idea how they might eventually affect our world.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TonyP;38910019][IMG]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120119110821/inuyasha/images/c/cb/Kagome_Episode_167.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Alright, I'll bite.
What does Sailor Moon have to do with MIT?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;38922717]Alright, I'll bite.
What does Sailor Moon have to do with MIT?[/QUOTE]
That's from Inuayasha plus I think magnets like that has the potential to provide mass acceleration
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38917682]Que argument about quantum communication breaking causality/no communication theorem in 3...2...1...
[editline]21st December 2012[/editline]
Well, maybe in a few pages at least[/QUOTE]
I see what you did there.....
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;38922717]Alright, I'll bite.
What does Sailor Moon have to do with MIT?[/QUOTE]
Yeah what does dbz have anything to do with Stanford?
[QUOTE=viperfan7;38924794]I see what you did there.....[/QUOTE]
I read this great article on the Uncertainty Principle, but that's neither here nor there.
golly gee
[QUOTE=ShootEvryRapper;38918005]
This is just what I've come to theorize through very limited pseudoknowledge of advanced physics concepts and the use of drugs.[/QUOTE]
well that's interesting haha
[QUOTE=ShootEvryRapper;38918005]But i think the main thing entanglement suggests is that there is a relationship (between particles, space, time, or energy) not dependent upon the laws of physics as we know, and in my mind that would be due to the relation between objects in a fundamentally different manner, dimensionally speaking. For instance, that two particles can communicate instantly is said to be impossible due to the fact that information cannot travel at the speed of light. I propose that our perception of an objective reality anchored by 4 dimensions (space (3) and time (1)) is not the only or is only part of reality. If this is at all the case then instant communication of information does not necessarily require any time, if even additional energy.
Furthermore supposing this is the case, it could be suggested that all entanglement-affective particles of familiar attributes are simultaneously interconnected. If it can be done with no additional energy put into the recieving (and thus the "emitting") particle, then it must be a certain arrangement of the existing energy (information) associated with the particle(s)[In the sense that information could be determined by the conditions of the arrangement of the energy]. Furthermore this implies that many states of arrangement exist independently of the particle and/or the energy simultaneously.
This is just what I've come to theorize through very limited pseudoknowledge of advanced physics concepts and the use of drugs.[/QUOTE]
yes, it's quite common for people to spout meaningless gibberish when they're on drugs
I guess this can be use to produce infinite energy, or something.
so basically, schools lied to me again when they said there were only 3 states of matter?
edit: i mean, i know plasma is the fourth, but still
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
