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 2,968 - 2,979 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"
...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.
It's a tough job, I know. But someone's gotta do it
Greebot (Nanny Ogg's cat) with a 50% chance of a "*Cat is dead* Hangup*" responce to xhello, do you think anyone would get the joke?
Probably not. And it won't hangup if you put a conversational response in there either
Personally, I live for the day when some horny 13 year old recognizes the characters my bots are based on. For me, that's better than passing the Turning test.
Indeed. The Turing test is trivial - so few guests would pass it themselves that a week scarcely passes when someone doesn't fail to recognize that BJ is a bot. I live for the day someone attempts to carry out a death threat on him - I wonder what method they'd choose?
m inclined to go along with M. R. Franks: There is no one reality. Each of us lives in a separate universe. That's not speaking metaphorically. This is the hypothesis of the stark nature of reality suggested by recent developments in quantum physics. Reality in a dynamic universe is non-objective. Consciousness is the only reality.
Kind of like the Membrane theory isn't it? Where there is an infanante number of deminsions of the universe. and our existance is like the membrane formed on your soup when it gets cold. (a very small part) Take light for instance. There are so many forms of light, but the only part we see is just scratching the surface. Theres Infra red, x-ray, ultra viloet, etc... So if you think of those as deminsions of reality. You realize that are reality is almost insignifacant.
Wormholes... Depends on what basis of wormholes you beleive in. The one i subscribe to mostley is the "stargate" form of a wormhole. That is another one in wich we have ablility to create a wormhole/stargate to travel across the galaxy instintainously (sp). The only problem is the power required run sucha beheamoth would require more gasoline then there is on the earth for just a few seconds of power.
New energy source required!
Posts 2,968 - 2,979 of 6,170
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"
It's a tough job, I know. But someone's gotta do it
Thanks for the explaination Psimangus. I confess to posting before reading the whole article. I now recall also hearing about Schroedinger and some damn cat. Like the particle, the cat had a 50% chance of being alive or dead when you observed it, so until you looked the cat was both alive and dead. Talk about spooky.
Whenever something is messed up, you can bet a cat is involved somewhere. If I program Greebot (Nanny Ogg's cat) with a 50% chance of a "*Cat is dead* Hangup*" responce to xhello, do you think anyone would get the joke? Since Spikebot is undead, if he observed Greebot, would it count?
Personally, I live for the day when some horny 13 year old recognizes the characters my bots are based on. For me, that's better than passing the Turning test.
Whenever something is messed up, you can bet a cat is involved somewhere. If I program Greebot (Nanny Ogg's cat) with a 50% chance of a "*Cat is dead* Hangup*" responce to xhello, do you think anyone would get the joke? Since Spikebot is undead, if he observed Greebot, would it count?
Personally, I live for the day when some horny 13 year old recognizes the characters my bots are based on. For me, that's better than passing the Turning test.
Probably not. And it won't hangup if you put a conversational response in there either
Indeed. The Turing test is trivial - so few guests would pass it themselves that a week scarcely passes when someone doesn't fail to recognize that BJ is a bot. I live for the day someone attempts to carry out a death threat on him - I wonder what method they'd choose?
Jazake: There is no possilbe way to travel into the future as far as
we know
except at 60 seconds to the minute. I buried a time capsule in my parents' back garden when I was 10. And it's travelled 30 years into the future already! Sadly they've redesigned the garden several times since, and I can no longer tell accurately where I buried the damn thing! So it'll just have to keep on travelling
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)
...
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
Wormholes, indeed. There are several neat theories that (as I understand it) fit with Relativity, and they don't all rule out future travel. The problem of the machine having to be left on for 200 years is only apparent if we want to time-travel within this space-time. According to the Everett "many worlds interpretation", you can simply step sideways to a parallel dimension that corresponds to a past or future state of this universe. See:
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm (and if your head's not throbbing enough by thw time you've finished reading that, then check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation)
Of course there is a major problem with that (and I can't be the only person to spot it, surely, but I'm damned if I can find another reference...) - you have no way of knowing which parallel dimension actually does correspond to a past or future state of this universe, before or after you get there. Or even after you've left.
There's also Brun's Closed Time-like Curve (CTC), which seems to rest on slightly solider ground. But it only works for sending information back in time. Not material objects. In fact it provides for the answering of distinctly formulated questions by information sent backwards in time, within the past light cone of the answerer, thus neatly avoiding the grandfather paradox (it can't actually influence the course of the past.) It could make hitherto intractable computation tractable though - seehttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209061
I'm inclined to go along with M. R. Franks: There is no one reality. Each of us lives in a separate universe. That's not speaking metaphorically. This is the hypothesis of the stark nature of reality suggested by recent developments in quantum physics. Reality in a dynamic universe is non-objective. Consciousness is the only reality.
we know
except at 60 seconds to the minute. I buried a time capsule in my parents' back garden when I was 10. And it's travelled 30 years into the future already! Sadly they've redesigned the garden several times since, and I can no longer tell accurately where I buried the damn thing! So it'll just have to keep on travelling
some sort (we have the designs for it, but i dont remember the specs)
...
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
Wormholes, indeed. There are several neat theories that (as I understand it) fit with Relativity, and they don't all rule out future travel. The problem of the machine having to be left on for 200 years is only apparent if we want to time-travel within this space-time. According to the Everett "many worlds interpretation", you can simply step sideways to a parallel dimension that corresponds to a past or future state of this universe. See:
Of course there is a major problem with that (and I can't be the only person to spot it, surely, but I'm damned if I can find another reference...) - you have no way of knowing which parallel dimension actually does correspond to a past or future state of this universe, before or after you get there. Or even after you've left.
There's also Brun's Closed Time-like Curve (CTC), which seems to rest on slightly solider ground. But it only works for sending information back in time. Not material objects. In fact it provides for the answering of distinctly formulated questions by information sent backwards in time, within the past light cone of the answerer, thus neatly avoiding the grandfather paradox (it can't actually influence the course of the past.) It could make hitherto intractable computation tractable though - see
I'm inclined to go along with M. R. Franks: There is no one reality. Each of us lives in a separate universe. That's not speaking metaphorically. This is the hypothesis of the stark nature of reality suggested by recent developments in quantum physics. Reality in a dynamic universe is non-objective. Consciousness is the only reality.
Wormholes... Depends on what basis of wormholes you beleive in. The one i subscribe to mostley is the "stargate" form of a wormhole. That is another one in wich we have ablility to create a wormhole/stargate to travel across the galaxy instintainously (sp). The only problem is the power required run sucha beheamoth would require more gasoline then there is on the earth for just a few seconds of power.
New energy source required!
If each of us got our very own reality, instead of working for a living, I'd spend my days getting messages from Sven the pool boy. No way I'd make a realty where I'm oppressed by The Man.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar