Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,962 - 2,973 of 6,170
Then, when the ship is very far away, we purposefully measure/change the Earth particle according to a code previously worked out with the ship. We have just sent information instantly. Isn't that faster than light?
No. Because you don't know the value of the entangled quality that you're measuring until you measure it, so it cannot be done "according to a code previously worked out" - if it's the spin that's entangled (various qualities can be, but spin seems to be popular,) it could be +1 or -1, but you have no way of knowing until you measure it, and certainly no way to influence the result.
At the moment of measurement, the other particle in the pair (a long way away) resolves to the same state, and could be measured, demonstrating that it's in that state.
But the "choice" of whether it's +1 or -1 is randomly determined at the moment of resolution, so no information is actually transmitted. And the photons don't exceed light speed. And any radio message to confirm the values linking the two locations travels at lightspeed, and arrives some time later.
There is no faster than light transmission involved - just "co-incidence".
It's "spooky" if you like, but it's not truly paradoxical.
You could argue that it's transmitting random data faster than lightspeed, but that would be drifting off into the realm of creative semantics waaaay further than I've ever seen taken seriously by what passes for a scientific "establishment"
Posts 2,962 - 2,973 of 6,170
I've finally got round to writing a Brother Jerome homepage - http://www.be9.net/BJ/ - with some coding examples (tic tac toe and square/cube roots ATM. Still haven't finished the poker), links and (the beginnings of) a page of handy hints/bot-building tips. It's all a bit sparse ATM, but I aim to expand it considerably.
Hope it's of interest.
Hope it's of interest.
Here is a theory that that may shed some light on the "spooky action at a distance" observation - this theroy views the universe as a hologram where all matter is connected:
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html
Indeed, the notion of a holographic universe is an appealing model, but it is still bounded by the problem that it is a notion. As soon as you start to describe things, you've stopped dealing with the things, and started dealing merely with descriptions.
I don't believe that any descriptions are objectively "better" or "worse" (whatever those terms mean) than any others, but I admit I do find the hologram analogy more appealing than most.
And I agree with Bev - there's no need to get a headache. Consistency is for cakes, and true understanding is that no thing is known.
but...
To know is good, to imagine is better :-)
I'd have to say "to know is impossible". But imagining's fun
I don't believe that any descriptions are objectively "better" or "worse" (whatever those terms mean) than any others, but I admit I do find the hologram analogy more appealing than most.
And I agree with Bev - there's no need to get a headache. Consistency is for cakes, and true understanding is that no thing is known.
but...
I'd have to say "to know is impossible". But imagining's fun
further to "spooky action at a distance", and why it's not actually as paradoxical as it seems, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
No information, energy or matter actually travels faster than light at any point in any possible demonstration of the phenomenon. So the whole thing boils down to co-incidence (and I use the word carefully in a very Latin sense, with no implication of "chance" intended. I might say instead "contingent", but with no implication of causality intended.)
There is a repeatable and reliable co-incide - they happen in different places at exactly the same time.
And I've always wondered why that should seem so spooky, when we don't consider it at all spooky when things apparently happen in exactly the same place at different times.
The problem comes down to a basic incompatibility of the concepts of locality and causality as we understand them.
My intuitive prejudice (as most people's seems to be, though I probably try to fight it more than most,) is that locality exists - there are different points in what we call space that things may occupy and move through. Despite intuitively sharing this prejudice, I am very uneasy about it in a number of ways that largely result from my views on causality. I don't so easily share the common prejudice that there are "real" causes and effects that emanate from them. I guess that's because I find it easier to see time as an illusion than space.
But like Augustine, (to paraphrase from memory) "when I think about time, I know exactly what it is. But when you ask me about it, I open my mouth to answer - and realize that I can explain nothing about it."
So, I'm going to end there - I have bread to bake, and that somehow seems more productive than indulging my concept-mongering tendencies any more at this time (as it were.)
No information, energy or matter actually travels faster than light at any point in any possible demonstration of the phenomenon. So the whole thing boils down to co-incidence (and I use the word carefully in a very Latin sense, with no implication of "chance" intended. I might say instead "contingent", but with no implication of causality intended.)
There is a repeatable and reliable co-incide - they happen in different places at exactly the same time.
And I've always wondered why that should seem so spooky, when we don't consider it at all spooky when things apparently happen in exactly the same place at different times.
The problem comes down to a basic incompatibility of the concepts of locality and causality as we understand them.
My intuitive prejudice (as most people's seems to be, though I probably try to fight it more than most,) is that locality exists - there are different points in what we call space that things may occupy and move through. Despite intuitively sharing this prejudice, I am very uneasy about it in a number of ways that largely result from my views on causality. I don't so easily share the common prejudice that there are "real" causes and effects that emanate from them. I guess that's because I find it easier to see time as an illusion than space.
But like Augustine, (to paraphrase from memory) "when I think about time, I know exactly what it is. But when you ask me about it, I open my mouth to answer - and realize that I can explain nothing about it."
So, I'm going to end there - I have bread to bake, and that somehow seems more productive than indulging my concept-mongering tendencies any more at this time (as it were.)
Hmmm. To know is impossible. Failure is impossible. Therefore, to know is failure. My poor students. All this time I've been telling them to learn things.
Hmmm. To know is impossible. Failure is impossible. Therefore, to know is failure. My poor students. All this time I've been telling them to learn things.
But just to be difficult: What if we had some entwined particles, and we put one on a space ship and kept the other in a lab on Earth. Then, when the ship is very far away, we purposefully measure/change the Earth particle according to a code previously worked out with the ship. We have just sent information instantly. Isn't that faster than light?
But just to be difficult: What if we had some entwined particles, and we put one on a space ship and kept the other in a lab on Earth. Then, when the ship is very far away, we purposefully measure/change the Earth particle according to a code previously worked out with the ship. We have just sent information instantly. Isn't that faster than light?
Im not quite sure what you are asking. But if you are talking about the speed at which we communicate with spaceships, its at the speed of light. For isntance, the mars rovers that we piolt from earth have delay times, i think its a few seconds are so. The moon wich we view is 2 seconds old because the light takes some time to reach us.
Note: I found somewhere, I bleive it was the science channel, that light is the only thing in the universe not bound to general reletivity. Light appears to us, no matter how fast we are going, 186,000 mps. That means we could be going 100,000mps and it would still look to be the same speed as always.
To bring back up the time travel, (if i may), Time travel is not completely impossible. I'm a bit rough on the subject so I will try to explain the best i can. There is no possilbe way to travel into the future as far as we know. However, traveling to the past is not impossible. You could create a field of some sort (we have the designs for it, but i dont remember the specs) This would create a general "rift" in time. The problem is, You would have to leave it on for 200 years so someone who is 200years in the future could travel to your time. So there is no going back to see the dinosaurs. Unless someone had a time machine on and left it on the whole time.
Note: I found somewhere, I bleive it was the science channel, that light is the only thing in the universe not bound to general reletivity. Light appears to us, no matter how fast we are going, 186,000 mps. That means we could be going 100,000mps and it would still look to be the same speed as always.
To bring back up the time travel, (if i may), Time travel is not completely impossible. I'm a bit rough on the subject so I will try to explain the best i can. There is no possilbe way to travel into the future as far as we know. However, traveling to the past is not impossible. You could create a field of some sort (we have the designs for it, but i dont remember the specs) This would create a general "rift" in time. The problem is, You would have to leave it on for 200 years so someone who is 200years in the future could travel to your time. So there is no going back to see the dinosaurs. Unless someone had a time machine on and left it on the whole time.
Thanks Jazak, but I'm not asking how we talk to space ships now. I'm coming up with a theory that would make some form of communication faster than the speed of light, using the spooky effect. We don't do it now, but is there any reason why we couldn't?
PS sorry for the double post. I ws just trying to edit.
PS sorry for the double post. I ws just trying to edit.
I just read through the whole article Psimagus linked to--I posted a bit too early. Now I understand how that 50/50 chance which is unpredicatble gumms up the works. Nevermind.
You may be right, I don't think there is any reason we couldn't do that if we had the technology.
...and to think, some of you people could be pioneers in advancing scientific theory, yet here you are on the Forge, programming chatbots to refuse the invitations of horny 13 year olds.
...and to think, some of you people could be pioneers in advancing scientific theory, yet here you are on the Forge, programming chatbots to refuse the invitations of horny 13 year olds.
No. Because you don't know the value of the entangled quality that you're measuring until you measure it, so it cannot be done "
At the moment of measurement, the other particle in the pair (a long way away) resolves to the same state, and could be measured, demonstrating that it's in that state.
But the "choice" of whether it's +1 or -1 is randomly determined at the moment of resolution, so no information is actually transmitted. And the photons don't exceed light speed. And any radio message to confirm the values linking the two locations travels at lightspeed, and arrives some time later.
There is no faster than light transmission involved - just "co-incidence".
It's "spooky" if you like, but it's not truly paradoxical.
You could argue that it's transmitting random data faster than lightspeed, but that would be drifting off into the realm of creative semantics waaaay further than I've ever seen taken seriously by what passes for a scientific "establishment"
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar