Faster than Light Communication. Can someone explain how this wouldn't accomplish it?

The teater totter idea reminds me of the same thinking but using a merry go round. How would a merry go round one light year in diameter behave? What would happen if the passengers of the merry go round had lasers pointers and pointed them inward and outward on the merry go round while it spun?

What happens at the very exact center (on quantum scale) of a rotation object?

Stuff I used to think about after recess.

Pandora got messages from earth overnight at 6 light years away!

Faster-than-light communication

In a Swiss experiment, two entangled photons 18 km away from each other were able to communicate with each other almost instantaneously.

On the basis of their measurements, the team concluded that if the photons had communicated, they must have done so at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light -- something nearly all physicists thought would be impossible. In other words, these photons cannot know about each other through any sort of normal exchange of information.


www.universetoday.com...


everything2.com...

casimirinstitute.net...

Originally posted by staple
The teater totter idea reminds me of the same thinking but using a merry go round. How would a merry go round one light year in diameter behave? What would happen if the passengers of the merry go round had lasers pointers and pointed them inward and outward on the merry go round while it spun?

What happens at the very exact center (on quantum scale) of a rotation object?

Stuff I used to think about after recess.

Do you mean one light year in diameter traveling at the speed of light? Or just that size? Traveling at any particular speed? I might be reading it wrong or missing a part of it. But its interesting and I want to think about it so elaborate if you don't mind.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


My example was for a light year diameter MGR traveling at light speed. Then make it two light years in diameter and spin it at light speed.

The quantum theory sounds more likely.
Problem is, you need to find the other photon 3bil LY away...

reply to post by sremmos


Amazingly, I found myself pondering a very similar question just a week or so ago. Your experiment may more clearly explain the idea, but ultimately I was thinking that light is not the ultimate top speed, instantaneous is. Like when you find out your loved one just died, you instantaneously feel sadness. Or when guns are introduced into society that the need for protection against those guns is also instantaneously introduced. My favorite idea was that when money is introduced into society it instantaneously creates a self-destructive paradigm.

Originally posted by bobw927
Pandora got messages from earth overnight at 6 light years away!

Faster-than-light communication

In a Swiss experiment, two entangled photons 18 km away from each other were able to communicate with each other almost instantaneously.

On the basis of their measurements, the team concluded that if the photons had communicated, they must have done so at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light -- something nearly all physicists thought would be impossible. In other words, these photons cannot know about each other through any sort of normal exchange of information.

Interesting juxtaposition of fact and fantasy. I hate to burst your bubble, but Pandora exists only in the movie, "Avatar". Despite the amazing graphics, that planet is pure fiction.

The Swiss experiment, on the other hand, looks very promising for FTL communication in the forseeable future. The main differences between it and the recent Chinese experiment are 1. The Swiss have a reputation for honesty, and 2.Their signal was carried via optical fiber rather than in free air.

The device described in the "universetoday" link smells pretty fishy to me. I think their "polarity waves" are basically standing waves. It has long been known that standing waves can move faster than light, but a change initiated at one end can only reach the other end at the speed of light.

The "everything2" article is a bit over my head, as I never understood tensors. I think it is saying that the information sent via quantum entanglement is useless without the key, which must be sent at the speed of light. I think there is a way around that key. If the receiver had the key before the signal was sent, the information would be immediately available. Also, it is only necessary for the receiver to know when a message is sent, not what the message is. A readable message may be sent by varying the time intervals between unreadable messages. The timing is the message.

The "casimirinstitute" article is simple, straight forward and easily understood. I don't know if that is the method employed by Chinese or Swiss.

reply to post by Phractal Phil


i think hard sometimes so bear with me here
if there was a flexing of space time at a base level
the energy would be moving all particals in the universe at the same time in a wave
but because everything is moving at the same rate no noticable effects are observered
now when one patical is made to move out of sync with this flexing its pair or entangled partner would also move out of sysnc
it is the constant movement that allows for information to be transfered by this medium

xploder

this is speculation on my part

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by sremmos

 

Amazingly, I found myself pondering a very similar question just a week or so ago. Your experiment may more clearly explain the idea, but ultimately I was thinking that light is not the ultimate top speed, instantaneous is. Like when you find out your loved one just died, you instantaneously feel sadness. Or when guns are introduced into society that the need for protection against those guns is also instantaneously introduced. My favorite idea was that when money is introduced into society it instantaneously creates a self-destructive paradigm.

Those things aren't instantaneous. They can seem that way in retrospect. It's a silly example, but i'll bite. When guns are introduced the need to protect against them isn't instantaneous? You guys are coming up with some crazy ideas. Just because you do something, and there is an immediate result, this does not constitute faster than light communication. The fact you can see these events puts them in a lesser category. You need to think of this topic in regards to long distances of travel and communication to keep from diluting your own grasp on this, and other people's ideas on the subject.

The motion is not transferred instantaneously. Your teeter totter would flex. There has to be a delay or it would break.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Respectfully, I disagree with you. I believe that all three of the examples I used do actually illustrate the idea of instantaneous reactions. Do you not instantly feel grief or sadness the moment you see your mother die? It would be interesting for you to describe to me how my examples are wrong. Honestly, I am interested to see if some good arguments can either change my mind or refine this idea in my head. Thanks for noticing anyways.

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Honestly, I am interested to see if some good arguments can either change my mind or refine this idea in my head. Thanks for noticing anyways.

How about the fact that our brains have neurons and our reaction time is merely the delay between bits of information traveling between neurons? Of course the speed information travels between two neurons is pretty low (less than 300mph I think), but since we have billions triggering at any given time and the distance between them is pretty small delays will be minimized perhaps to fractions of ms from the moment you sense the signal to the moment you actually feel anything.

Of course this would change nothing if you believe in entities like souls in which case I wouldn't have a good argument and though I'd disagree with that thought I do respect those beliefs.

reply to post by daniel_g


I see your point. How about this example though: When two people run a race, the exact moment that the first person crosses the finish line that person is instantly the winner and other is instantly the loser. No thinking necessary, it just is what it is. Is that a better example?

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Respectfully, I disagree with you. I believe that all three of the examples I used do actually illustrate the idea of instantaneous reactions. Do you not instantly feel grief or sadness the moment you see your mother die? It would be interesting for you to describe to me how my examples are wrong. Honestly, I am interested to see if some good arguments can either change my mind or refine this idea in my head. Thanks for noticing anyways.

It's subjective. If you think that is instantaneous. It would be impossible to tell by those examples as grief is probably already present. It's impossible to say in those situations. If it takes a nano second it's not really instant is it?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


If it takes a nano-second, then I agree that it is not instantaneous. However, instantaneous may be an idea that human beings can't quite comprehend kind of like the idea of infinity. If something happens so fast that you can't measure how fast it is, then you have to call it instantaneous in exactly the same way you must call something infinite. The two ideas are mutually exclusive I'm not saying that infinite things are or must be instant, I'm simply saying that human beings don't really have a way to measure everything at this point in time and those two ideas are there to cover such things. The two person race example is not affected by nano-seconds anyway, the exact moment one person is the winner the other person is the loser, that is instantaneous. Am I wrong about that?

P.S.-Why would you have grief before your mother died? What if it was a sudden unexpected death?

reply to post by budaruskie


I think in a way you are rigth, the instant you win a race you should be the winner here and everywhere, and I have actually pondered about a similar situation:

If humans ever got enough technology to play with the rules of physics, and we decided to change the number pi from 3.1416 to 4, will the change be instant everywhere, or will it propagate through the universe at the speed of ligth?

Keep in mind that if the change was instant everywhere we'd have a FTL communication device since we could use 3.14 to denote a '0' and 4 to denote a '1' and another civilization migth be able to pick up a message. Of course it sounds silly to even think we may be able to modify the value of pi, but I'm just giving this as an example on how FTL communication migth be achieved.

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

If it takes a nano-second, then I agree that it is not instantaneous. However, instantaneous may be an idea that human beings can't quite comprehend kind of like the idea of infinity. If something happens so fast that you can't measure how fast it is, then you have to call it instantaneous in exactly the same way you must call something infinite. The two ideas are mutually exclusive I'm not saying that infinite things are or must be instant, I'm simply saying that human beings don't really have a way to measure everything at this point in time and those two ideas are there to cover such things. The two person race example is not affected by nano-seconds anyway, the exact moment one person is the winner the other person is the loser, that is instantaneous. Am I wrong about that?

P.S.-Why would you have grief before your mother died? What if it was a sudden unexpected death?

Well just because we can't doesn't mean a scientist with imaging devices can't. Just sit back and watch our brains highlight. And yeah for some reason I wasn't considering accidents. It would register quickly but not instantly and still in an incomplete form.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


Well just because we can't doesn't mean a scientist with imaging devices can't. Just sit back and watch our brains highlight. And yeah for some reason I wasn't considering accidents. It would register quickly but not instantly and still in an incomplete form.

Not to be rude, but this post doesn't make any sense to me. Scientists have not been able to count the number of stars in the sky and that is why the idea of infinity has come about. Sitting back and watching our brains highlight is an extremely confusing statement. How emotions, and especially the grief you feel when you see your mother die, could be incomplete is also a very odd idea. You made a point by saying that emotions were limited by the speed at which thoughts were carried through brain synapses earlier, and I conceded to say that was a valid point. Although it is perceived by our brains as instantaneous its probably delayed by nano-seconds. However, the 2 person race example is clearly a different case, and I was hoping you could expand upon it.

Hmm, wondering about the water example, with the ballons.

Water is rather rigid, very very hard to compress. Would the watertube-ballon experiment work on a large enough scale to measure this? There is something very special about water.

Originally posted by sremmos

Originally posted by XPLodER
there are particals and photons that are capable of being in two places at the same time
quantum intanglement
its a theory that if one partical is induced to move or display a charictoristic the other does the exact same thing and distance doesnt matter
in this way we could comunicate across vast distances in no time

xploder

Does this imply that distance as we understand it is an illusion?

Time is the illusion.