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

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39890097]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.[/QUOTE] Well obviously this is not backed up, we aren't real scientists, talking on a non scientist forum. Did you expect to see people sending PDFs post after post? [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BrainDeath;39890178]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[/QUOTE] If you want to get technical, then you're right. But since this would happen in our universe and would bypass our known laws, I suppose it still applies kinda?

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890184]Well obviously this is not backed up, we aren't real scientists, talking on a non scientist forum. Did you expect to see people sending PDFs post after post?[/QUOTE] You don't have to be a scientist to discuss science. Besides, I know there's plenty of physics students and people interested in physics on this forum. What kind of a response did you expect when you throw around ideas that have no proof or experiments behind them? You might as well be saying "It could work with magic!"

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890184]Well obviously this is not backed up, we aren't real scientists, talking on a non scientist forum. Did you expect to see people sending PDFs post after post? [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] If you want to get technical, then you're right. But since this would happen in our universe and would bypass our known laws, I suppose it still applies kinda?[/QUOTE] so your argument is that it could be possible to travel faster than the speed of light (which is impossible) if only we could just [I]tunnel to another universe[/I] and [I]pull magic out of it[/I]?

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890184]Well obviously this is not backed up, we aren't real scientists, talking on a non scientist forum. Did you expect to see people sending PDFs post after post? [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] If you want to get technical, then you're right. But since this would happen in our universe and would bypass our known laws, I suppose it still applies kinda?[/QUOTE] ok i concede that if the laws of the universe were totally rewritten we could easily send information faster than the speed of light.

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;39890236]so your argument is that it could be possible to travel faster than the speed of light (which is impossible) if only we could just [I]tunnel to another universe[/I] and [I]pull magic out of it[/I]?[/QUOTE] Basically yes? :v: [QUOTE=Block;39890224]You don't have to be a scientist to discuss science. Besides, I know there's plenty of physics students and people interested in physics on this forum. What kind of a response did you expect when you throw around ideas that have no proof or experiments behind them? You might as well be saying "It could work with magic!"[/QUOTE] I would expect a counter argument, such as "It wouldn't work because magic is only available after 9pm" I'm not saying everything I say is true, supposed to be true or even trying to change someone's opinion. This is discussion board after all, so I'm throwing out opinion/ideas/etc?

and on this day a scientific revolution happened as the scientists all over facepunch began harnessing space magic from other universes.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890184]Well obviously this is not backed up, we aren't real scientists[/QUOTE] well that depends on how you use that term, do you include students in the natural sciences, because some of us are those I don't think anyone here is a a working physicist yet though

I mean, I understand we have to adhere to some sort of standard here, but we don't need to sperg and shoot down everything because :science: I prefer sort of sci-fi approach. Cut a few corners if you think it could be possible in the near future or because of something that we are in process of theorizing. Like, I dunno, send information through higgs field as someone said? Sure, why not. [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39890341]well that depends on how you use that term, do you include students in the natural sciences, because some of us are those[/QUOTE] no

fuck the laws of physics let's just cut corners and everything will be possible why aren't you an engineer? we could use your revolutionary mindset to cut the fat away from that pretentious, snobbier, holier than thou laws of nature.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890345]I mean, I understand we have to adhere to some sort of standard here, but we don't need to sperg and shoot down everything because :science:[/QUOTE] Well if everything so far in :science: says that it's impossible we kind of ought to shoot it down. We are still talking about reality here, not sci-fi.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39890384]fuck the laws of physics let's just cut corners and everything will be possible why aren't you an engineer? we could use your revolutionary mindset to cut the fat away from that pretentious, snobbier, holier than thou laws of nature.[/QUOTE] or the girders from pretentious, snobbier holier than thou bridges

[QUOTE=Yahnich;39890401]how do you want to send information through a fundamental field exactly[/QUOTE] I thought you could tell me, since I took it from your post. [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39890384]fuck the laws of physics let's just cut corners and everything will be possible why aren't you an engineer? we could use your revolutionary mindset to cut the fat away from that pretentious, snobbier, holier than thou laws of nature.[/QUOTE] Yeah I dunno, I tried applying but they said Nature isn't very happy about those kinda of employees, and they can't argue with the top staff, so here I am, unemployed, trying to rebel against the Nature dictatorship in the Our Universe. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39890385]Well if everything so far in :science: says that it's impossible we kind of ought to shoot it down. We are still talking about reality here, not sci-fi.[/QUOTE] Where's the fun in that? Instead of trying find your way out of maze, let's try connecting the dots?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39890341]well that depends on how you use that term, do you include students in the natural sciences, because some of us are those I don't think anyone here is a a working physicist yet though[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure Avon is.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;39891173]I'm pretty sure Avon is.[/QUOTE] Last I remember he was a grad student, but I'm not sure now.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39886940]Can everybody on FP please not make claims about quantum physics when they don't actually understand it okay thanks. Quantum entanglement cannot send information faster than light.[/QUOTE] Except where they clearly proved it in the article.

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;39891219]Except where they clearly proved it in the article.[/QUOTE] they showed "spooky action at a distance", nothing about that implies any data can be sent or interpreted.

[QUOTE=Yahnich;39891239]i don't think you quite understand what they exactly proved[/QUOTE] The article clearly states they clocked the speed of quantum entanglement at about 10,000 times the speed of light. I don't see how this is lost to you all.

[QUOTE=Yahnich;39890901]i said it because the idea is ridiculous [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] you know what i'm fighting a losing battle because he outcrazies me, i'm out[/QUOTE] nooooo :( Why is it ridiculous, let's talk about it. Maybe we can come up with a solution and be in the next article. sadpanda.jpg

Every single obstacle to maintaining a presence in the galaxy is being conquered

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39891275]they showed "spooky action at a distance", nothing about that implies any data can be sent or interpreted.[/QUOTE] That's just details. They figure it out over the weekend, using our Higgs Field idea.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890731]Where's the fun in that? Instead of trying find your way out of maze, let's try connecting the dots?[/QUOTE] How does that analogy make any sense? This is science, not science fiction writing. We're trying to understand nature, not make it up to suit our tastes.

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;39891277]The article clearly states they clocked the speed of quantum entanglement at about 10,000 times the speed of light. I don't see how this is lost to you all.[/QUOTE] Quantum entanglement cannot send information faster than light. Read the thread before you post.

[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] to simplify my previous understanding, this siren represents two states of a quantum particle, red or blue- [img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-siren.gif[/img] the siren at the end of the post is entangled and changes color, despite being many many pixels away- if your browser window is too short, you can only observe one at a time (let's say the other one is a lightyear away) You can observe the change from red to blue and know the other one is changing reds and blues at the same time- HOWEVER, we do not know if the other one is red or blue [i]at the same time[/i]. They could naturally alter being a red or a blue without the other one over time, so you may either have a R/R connection, or a R/B connection at any given point, and since you can't confirm any other way, you'll have to rely on info transmitted by it. one way to do this is a code- for this instance, a * is a change, a _ is a pause. If you make a properly timed ***_ (and there are no other codes just like it), a decrypting computer could assume it to be 101, 1 being 'red' and 0 being 'blue', despite the actual state of the item. The timing of change is what matters at this point, not the actual positive/negative. this could potentially be used to transmit similar to morse code, digitally- you'd need one change to start a 'beep', a second well-timed change to stop the beep. kind of like how you need two points drawn at a distance from each other to create a line. You are essentially drawing out the dots or dashes to a morse code, for translation to either binary or actual morse letters or whatever this theory is founded on two principals though- the ability to change the state of one particle at will, and the ability to observe another particle without affecting it, which apparently isn't possible. This is starting to sound like Schroedinger's Atom in how you can only see what it is after observing, with no knowledge of what it was prior to this observation [img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-siren.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39891362]Quantum entanglement cannot send information faster than light. Read the thread before you post.[/QUOTE] Take this scenario into consideration: Let's say I entangle two photons. I then take one of them to another star system, and leave the other on earth. Going with the ship to the other star system, I give a key of various patterns of quantum information that would show what one person is trying to communicate (This is assuming we have the technology to know what the patterns between regular quantum phenomenon and entanglement patterns look like). Then I, using the key perform an action on one photon, and if this article is correct, assuming the technology is there to interpret the pattern, the ship in the other star system then interprets the quantum information, and determines all the possible states that it's in to get the given message. Now I'm no physicist, but I know if I act on one thing, and it causes an action on something else, then I can use that action to communicate. Unless I'm not clear on something please correct me, as I'm of the understanding that Quantum information is in a possibility (superposition) of different states, but only solidly known if measured. But if I make an action on this photon, doesn't the other one react the same way? That's transmitting information.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39891373]to simplify my previous understanding, this siren represents two states of a quantum particle, red or blue- [img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-siren.gif[/img] the siren at the end of the post is entangled and changes color, despite being many many pixels away- if your browser window is too short, you can only observe one at a time (let's say the other one is a lightyear away) You can observe the change from red to blue and know the other one is changing reds and blues at the same time- HOWEVER, we do not know if the other one is red or blue [i]at the same time[/i]. They could naturally alter being a red or a blue without the other one over time, so you may either have a R/R connection, or a R/B connection at any given point, and since you can't confirm any other way, you'll have to rely on info transmitted by it. one way to do this is a code- for this instance, a * is a change, a _ is a pause. If you make a properly timed ***_ (and there are no other codes just like it), a decrypting computer could assume it to be 101, 1 being 'red' and 0 being 'blue', despite the actual state of the item. The timing of change is what matters at this point, not the actual positive/negative. this could potentially be used to transmit similar to morse code, digitally- you'd need one change to start a 'beep', a second well-timed change to stop the beep. kind of like how you need two points drawn at a distance from each other to create a line. You are essentially drawing out the dots or dashes to a morse code, for translation to either binary or actual morse letters or whatever this theory is founded on two principals though- the ability to change the state of one particle at will, and the ability to observe another particle without affecting it, which apparently isn't possible. This is starting to sound like Schroedinger's Atom in how you can only see what it is after observing, with no knowledge of what it was prior to this observation [img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-siren.gif[/img][/QUOTE] To add to this idea, and with an exception that particle states aren't completely random after each observation: You could have a timed check-in for the changes in the particle and with previous info, you could predict what state would the particle be. For the sake of simplicity, let's take particle rotation. So the particle rotates left (but we don't know that yet), and then we observe it. It then changes it's rotation to the right, we write it down, then check again, expecting it to rotate left when we start observing it again. So it goes left, right, left, right. With this in mind, if someone else observes it, it changes its rotation too. If we check ours again, we would see left, right, right, left, right. I bet Johhny is facepalming all over again, but what the hell, entertainment isn't bad either. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39891345]How does that analogy make any sense? This is science, not science fiction writing. We're trying to understand nature, not make it up to suit our tastes.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying suit laws to our needs, but instead see the result and try to work out how can it be done. Basic goal setting stuff, y'know?

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;39891555]Take this scenario into consideration: Let's say I entangle two photons. I then take one of them to another star system, and leave the other on earth. Going with the ship to the other star system, I give a key of various patterns of quantum information that would show what one person is trying to communicate (This is assuming we have the technology to know what the patterns between regular quantum phenomenon and entanglement patterns look like). Then I, using the key perform an action on one photon, and if this article is correct, assuming the technology is there to interpret the pattern, the ship in the other star system then interprets the quantum information, and determines all the possible states that it's in to get the given message. Now I'm no physicist, but I know if I act on one thing, and it causes an action on something else, then I can use that action to communicate. Unless I'm not clear on something please correct me, as I'm of the understanding that Quantum information is in a possibility (superposition) of different states, but only solidly known if measured. But if I make an action on this photon, doesn't the other one react the same way? That's transmitting information.[/QUOTE] That's not how quantum measurements work. You only get one of the possible values for an observable quantity of the state of a quantum system, and you don't get to pick. The only way to know if a particle has been measured by the other person is to copy its state a bunch of times and take a bunch of measurements. If they all return one value, the particle has been measured already. If they return a bunch of values, the way quantum mechanics would predict before measurement, it hasn't been measured. The problem is that you can't copy states to measure a bunch like that. It's not just that we don't know how, it's not allowed by quantum mechanics. [QUOTE=maqzek;39891566]I'm not saying suit laws to our needs, but instead see the result and try to work out how can it be done. Basic goal setting stuff, y'know?[/QUOTE] It's not about goals to a physicist. It may be enjoyable to you to dream up things that can't happen and try to find ways that they can, (and if it is, by all means have fun doing it!) but I doubt most physicists are interested in that. They're interested in how things are.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39891373]this theory is founded on two principals though- the ability to change the state of one particle at will, and the ability to observe another particle without affecting it, which apparently isn't possible.[/QUOTE] But... but... what if we use a hidden camera to observe it? /science

Enderverse ansible much?

[QUOTE=maqzek;39890071]Also time isn't any different that energy.[/QUOTE] What

Is there a good layman explanation for quantum entanglement out there (that's accurate) or is it one of those things that can't be dumbed down Because even wikipedia has that "10,000 times faster than the speed of light" line in it