Chinese physicists measure "spooky action at a distance". At least 10.000 times the speed of light.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39888364]I thought the theory of communicating via quantum particles was something to do whether they measured one output or another, and you could use something to flip one's output back and forth like flicking a lightswitch, essentially communicating like morse code via telegraph. The problem posed with that was ALLEGEDLY the fact that the other end couldn't tell whether one state was a 1 or a 0 in the code (thus a chunk could read either 11010 or 00101), but that seemed like it would have a stupidly easy fix, like making a start/stop code in which it flicks a specific set code to give you a base for decryption, or just having two things process the 0's and 1's opposite of each other and see which one reads out

BUT, from what I'm understanding of what you're saying, if you measure the particle it changes state? I can see where that becomes an issue, but at the same time why not continue to measure the particle on one end and observe the changes from interacting with it on the other end? to communicate two-way why not have two sets, one for input and one for out?[/QUOTE]

tbh I'm not sure what you mean in the first part, but in the second I'm not positive. I was going to say either you'd run into the same problem of not knowing if/when the particle was measured or the first measurement would break the entanglement but none of my quantum mechanics textbooks have any discussion of entanglement which answers that so I won't answer for sure for fear of talking out my ass.

[swebonny]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39888753]tbh I'm not sure what you mean in the first part, but in the second I'm not positive. I was going to say either you'd run into the same problem of not knowing if/when the particle was measured or the first measurement would break the entanglement but none of my quantum mechanics textbooks have any discussion of entanglement which answers that so I won't answer for sure for fear of talking out my ass.[/QUOTE]

Everyone are talking oout of their asses at this moment, you better start doing that too.

[yawmwen]

also ftl communication isn't impossible if we have methods for relativistic ftl travel, right? i mean if we can "warp" space, then isn't ftl com possible on that principle alone?

[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]

that's assuming of course that relativistic ftl becomes something more than a bit of mathematics that works out on paper but isn't actually feasible.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39888770]also ftl communication isn't impossible if we have methods for relativistic ftl travel, right? i mean if we can "warp" space, then isn't ftl com possible on that principle alone?

[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]

that's assuming of course that relativistic ftl becomes something more than a bit of mathematics that works out on paper but isn't actually feasible.[/QUOTE]

True, something like the alcubierre drive can give us apparent ftl but it's not ftl in the sense a physicist will talk about. Nothing is locally traveling faster than light.

[yawmwen]

i don't care how fast something goes locally as long as i can have faster-than-light online matches with people across the galaxy.

[BrainDeath]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39888835]i don't care how fast something goes locally as long as i can have faster-than-light online matches with people across the galaxy.[/QUOTE]

I think the latency of warp-drive message probes is going to be quite high, alas your ping wouldn't really be good enough for Counter Strike.

Maybe Farmville?

Of course maybe we can do something else freaky with spacetime distortion to get photons to places quickly but I really doubt there's any other way.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;39888867]I think the latency of warp-drive message probes is going to be quite high, alas your ping wouldn't really be good enough for Counter Strike.

Maybe Farmville?

Of course maybe we can do something else freaky with spacetime distortion to get photons to places quickly but I really doubt there's any other way.[/QUOTE]

man i'll be happy if i could play chess or tic tac toe in a reasonable amount of time.

i'm not picky, i just wanna play with aliens.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39888835]i don't care how fast something goes locally as long as i can have faster-than-light online matches with people across the galaxy.[/QUOTE]

It would probably take huge amounts of energy to do that. It would be incredibly inefficient. We weren't even sure for a while that there was enough energy in the universe to get a ship around with the alcubierre drive.

[maqzek]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39888566]I don't think you understand the difference between conjecturing that we'll never be able to travel faster than light, and faster than light travel creating contradictions with well-established laws of physics.[/QUOTE]

I don't quite get where are you going with this. It's neither of those. If you're implying that our 'well-established' laws of physics cannot be broken/contradicted, then well, I guess we're done.

[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Swebonny;39888744]God exists, no one has ever had a proof of its existence, but it doesn't matter, in a few thousands or ten thousands of years it'll be here. Because nothing is impossible.

Replace God with FTL communitaion.[/QUOTE]

Your point being?

[BrainDeath]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39888971]It would probably take huge amounts of energy to do that. It would be incredibly inefficient. We weren't even sure for a while that there was enough energy in the universe to get a ship around with the alcubierre drive.[/QUOTE]

efficiency doesn't matter when you have scrubs to wreck

[swebonny]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39889141]
Your point being?[/QUOTE]

Your argument that it works is that nothing is impossible. Johnny's argument that it doesn't work based on our current knowledge of science.

I tried to make an equivalent stupid argument to show you how wrong it may sound.

Guess that flew 15 dimensions over your head in FTL speeds.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39889141]If you're implying that our 'well-established' laws of physics cannot be broken/contradicted, then well, I guess we're done.[/QUOTE]

What. That doesn't follow at all. Just because our current laws of physics explain many phenomena of nature accurately does not mean that they describe every phenomenon accurately, but if our laws show that it takes infinite energy to accelerate any massive object to the speed of light, no new law can make that untrue without creating a contradiction. But the predictions of relativity are very well verified.

Basically, our laws may not explain everything, but what they do explain they explain accurately. (otherwise we'd be actively looking for theories to replace them)

[maqzek]

[QUOTE=Swebonny;39889194]Your argument that it works is that nothing is impossible. Johnny's argument that it doesn't work based on our current knowledge of science.

I tried to make an equivalent stupid argument to show you how wrong it may sound.

Guess that flew 15 dimensions over your head in FTL speeds.[/QUOTE]

So instead let's discuss how this is impossible because of law #4983? Isn't this equally stupid?

The fun is talking about how it COULD be possible and leave actual science and theory testing to real scientists.

[swebonny]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39889429]So instead let's discuss how this is impossible because of law #4983? Isn't this equally stupid?

The fun is talking about how it COULD be possible and leave actual science and theory testing to real scientists.[/QUOTE]

Meh, I mean the ideas about FTL sure are cool and I hope that some of the laws are incomplete, but I just thought it may be relevant to bring up the "constraints" since this is an scientific article after all.

[IPK]

why is spooky action called spooky action

[Zenreon]

"Nothing can travel faster than speed of light."

Except information apparently

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39889429]So instead let's discuss how this is impossible because of law #4983? Isn't this equally stupid?

The fun is talking about how it COULD be possible and leave actual science and theory testing to real scientists.[/QUOTE]

yea but it should be boldly noted that all of this is simply conjecture. some people were attempting to speak with authority about how there are holes in the no communication theorem, and how this can be used for ftl communication when doing so would break our understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe.

[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=IPK;39889600]why is spooky action called spooky action[/QUOTE]

i think it was a bit pejorative because of the way quantum physics seemed to contradict causality. it was making fun of the idea, so to speak.

at least that's the way i heard it.

[maqzek]

Okay fine, I don't want to argue about FTL speeds and objects with mass, but I don't see why would you consider information as something that can't travel at above FTL? Or are you implying that to use that information it would require anything that would be constrained by FTL stuff?

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39889610]"Nothing can travel faster than speed of light."

Except information apparently[/QUOTE]

Just the opposite. Only things which do not transmit information can travel faster than light.

[DeanWinchester]

[QUOTE=Yahnich;39889556]these laws are actually natural laws and not arbitrary legal laws

you can't go faster than the speed of light for example ever

[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]

you're talking about straight up fiction[/QUOTE]

You can't go faster than light because we know of nothing that can up to now, saying it's fiction isn't very accurate, we simply don't know anything that can move faster than light and have accepted a law that we made from observable data and mathematical principles, if something shows up that defies it, then we have to adjust to it and improve on the previous laws and mathematics. Remember that the laws were developed by us based on what we can verify and test, doesn't make them absolute (just very reliable). I guess you could say it's fiction until proven true, after all a lot of what used to be science fiction is now real science.

[Cabbage]

Confused, what do you mean by 'information'? Actual data you'd find on a hardrive, or something different?

[maqzek]

[QUOTE=Yahnich;39889556]these laws are actually natural laws and not arbitrary legal laws

you can't go faster than the speed of light for example ever

[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]

you're talking about straight up fiction[/QUOTE]

I think there's still not enough info to make that statement. Also, maybe you don't need to break any laws, just make them irrelevant. Like if you had a portable device that would nullify gravity of an object, the weight of said object would be irrelevant if you would want to get it on some high point, like building a pyramid for example. So in a case of FTL needing infinite energy, you could siphon it from another universe/dimension/younameit. Yeah, this is basically Zero Point Module, I know :v:

[sp](I lied about FTL talk, just a bit)[/sp]

[BrainDeath]

[QUOTE=Cabbage;39889978]Confused, what do you mean by 'information'? Actual data you'd find on a hardrive, or something different?[/QUOTE]

absolutely anything you could use to make any deduction about anything at all

[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39889979]I think there's still not enough info to make that statement. Also, maybe you don't need to break any laws, just make them irrelevant. Like if you had a portable device that would nullify gravity of an object, the weight of said object would be irrelevant if you would want to get it on some high point, like building a pyramid for example. So in a case of FTL needing infinite energy, you could siphon it from another universe/dimension/younameit. Yeah, this is basically Zero Point Module, I know :v:

[sp](I lied about FTL talk, just a bit)[/sp][/QUOTE]

no
no no no

"all of the energy in the universe" is significantly less than "infinite energy"

if you gave something the kick of infinite energy it would become infinitely massive

if there was a maximum power level to deliver this energy it would take an infinite amount of time

it doesn't fucking happen ok

[DainBramageStud]

[QUOTE=Cabbage;39889978]Confused, what do you mean by 'information'? Actual data you'd find on a hardrive, or something different?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory[/url]

(though when physicists talk about information they might mean something different, idk)

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39889884]Okay fine, I don't want to argue about FTL speeds and objects with mass, but I don't see why would you consider information as something that can't travel at above FTL? Or are you implying that to use that information it would require anything that would be constrained by FTL stuff?[/QUOTE]

it would violate our ideas of causality.

if you can repeatedly demonstrate that you can indeed send information faster-than-light, then that means that maybe we need to rethink our idea of physics.

however, you can't just assume something is possible just because "we don't know everything about the universe". our idea that nothing can go ftl(locally) has been backed up for decades(a century? almost?) with empirical measurements and experiments. it has worked superbly to explain the universe so far. something that contradicts that would completely break apart our understanding of the universe.

it's definitely possible, but such an extraordinary claim would need to be backed with an extraordinary amount of evidence to support it.

and btw as i said earlier(and johnnymo1 confirmed), ftl travel is indeed possible. it just isn't local ftl travel. you can theoretically get somewhere faster than light would be able to get there. doing so just requires you to shorten the relative distance by warping space.

[maqzek]

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;39890002]absolutely anything you could use to make any deduction about anything at all

[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]

no
no no no

"all of the energy in the universe" is significantly less than "infinite energy"

if you gave something the kick of infinite energy it would become infinitely massive

if there was a maximum power level to deliver this energy it would take an infinite amount of time

it doesn't fucking happen ok[/QUOTE]

I never said all the energy in our universe. Other universe could function differently. Also time isn't any different that energy.

And are you implying that you can just simplify this into 2-3 sentences and that would be enough to say it can't happen? I'm not asking for a paper here, but that's not how it works.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890071]I never said all the energy in our universe. Other universe could function differently. Also time isn't any different that energy.

And are you implying that you can just simplify this into 2-3 sentences and that would be enough to say it can't happen? I'm not asking for a paper here, but that's not how it works.[/QUOTE]

is this backed up with any physics? i think you are delving into the region of simple "sci-fi" instead of postulation based upon our idea of the way the universe works.

[BrainDeath]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890071]I never said all the energy in our universe. Other universe could function differently. Also time isn't any different that energy.

And are you implying that you can just simplify this into 2-3 sentences and that would be enough to say it can't happen? I'm not asking for a paper here, but that's not how it works.[/QUOTE]

it's burden of proof here

you have to show us that this can happen because basicly all modern science says no

it wouldn't be hard to trash causality all you'd need to do is demonstrate information actually moving faster than light

[maqzek]

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;39890111]it's burden of proof here

you have to show us that this can happen because basicly all modern science says no

it wouldn't be hard to trash causality all you'd need to do is demonstrate information actually moving faster than light[/QUOTE]

Okay, lemme warm up my warpdrive and get you some Other Universe dust. be back never

[BrainDeath]

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890160]Okay, lemme warm up my warpdrive and get you some Other Universe dust. be back never[/QUOTE]

wtf

considering that this is an argument about the laws of physics in our universe I don't think the contents of other universes really apply