Random Thought #33

Post by **tnf** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:42 pm

We are always looking back in time, though, every time we stare at the sky. You realize that no two observers (unless they are exactly equidistant from the event) ever see the same event happening at the same time right?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:43 pm

Yeah same as hearing things on a faster scale.

Post by **tnf** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:43 pm

Kracus wrote:I've read a few articles of people saying they accomplished this.

Well, I guess if we look at the idea of quantum entanglement information might be transferred instantaneously...but "we" can't go faster than light..that's what I meant.

edit: actually, with quantum, information regarding the quantum state of something like a photon would be instantaneously transferred to a photon it is entangled to...so, yea, the idea of FTL information transmission is theoretically possible.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:44 pm

Still though it does bring back something I remember reading in that article that the scientists said they claimed to have seen the particle exit just before it entered basicly existing in two places at once. Maybe it wasn't in two places at once maybe they just saw it in two places at once.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:45 pm

tnf wrote:
Kracus wrote:I've read a few articles of people saying they accomplished this.
Well, I guess if we look at the idea of quantum entanglement information might be transferred instantaneously...but "we" can't go faster than light..that's what I meant.

Yeah we don't need to though we just need to be able to send a message. The knowledge you could send back would litteraly be invaluable. you could have an infinite wealth of knowledge in a few hours simply by devising this device because once you break that loop you would instantly gain unlimited knowledge I think...

Post by **tnf** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:45 pm

Yea, an electron can be in two places at once. Last month's discover magazines title article was "If an electron can be in two places at once, why can't you?" or something like that.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:47 pm

How did they do that?

Post by **tnf** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:50 pm

I don't have time to explain the experiments here and now - but it has to do with the electron's wave function...ahh...I'll try and explain it later. It isn't quite as intuitive as you'd think.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:52 pm

tnf wrote:Well, I guess if we look at the idea of quantum entanglement information might be transferred instantaneously...but "we" can't go faster than light..that's what I meant.

edit: actually, with quantum, information regarding the quantum state of something like a photon would be instantaneously transferred to a photon it is entangled to...so, yea, the idea of FTL information transmission is theoretically possible.

doesn't work out - there's some sort of fundamental censorship principle that prevents any information from being transfered.

I forget the details - and maybe some theorists think differently - but i seem to remember Roger Penrose (I think in Shadows of the Mind) explaining it.

Post by **Pext** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:31 pm

Kracus wrote:... can only be altered by an outside force.

on the assumption of an 'outside force':

1 - let's say we have a deterministic system: our universe.
2 - let's say this system goes through the same states over and over again (same timespan everytime). ~> cycles.
3 - let's say there is another system, the "outside force", able to influence our system.
4 - let Y be the influence that the outside force has on a state X of our system. we denote X + Y as the state that follows state X (~ the next state). if an influence Y1 is not equal to another influence Y2 then X+Y1 is not equal to X+Y2.

let X' be the state at the same relative time-position as X, just in the next cycle. because of (2) we have X' = X.
let Y' be the influence on X'. let Y be the influence on X.
let X2 be the next state after X. and let X2' be the next state after X'.

then we have X2' = X2.
thus, we have X2 = X2' = X+Y = X'+Y'
and finally we have Y = Y'.

so... this means that the part of the outside force that influences our system is in the same cycle as our universe. this means we can not distinguish it from our universe - it's a part of it.
we can repeat repeat this process with our new system and the remaining part of the 'outer force' as the new 'outer force' until we reach a configuration in which the remaining part of the 'outer force' has no influence on our system and vive versa.
thus, no outer force can exist.

Post by **plained** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:51 pm

yo univerce this

yo univerce that

yo thats some heavy deep shit right ther lol

Post by **tnf** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:05 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:
tnf wrote:Well, I guess if we look at the idea of quantum entanglement information might be transferred instantaneously...but "we" can't go faster than light..that's what I meant.

edit: actually, with quantum, information regarding the quantum state of something like a photon would be instantaneously transferred to a photon it is entangled to...so, yea, the idea of FTL information transmission is theoretically possible.
doesn't work out - there's some sort of fundamental censorship principle that prevents any information from being transfered.

I forget the details - and maybe some theorists think differently - but i seem to remember Roger Penrose (I think in Shadows of the Mind) explaining it.

I haven't looked into the details, I was just using the simple idea that we can make an inference as to the state of one photon based on measurements of another that it is entangled with.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:20 pm

i think it's because both entangled photons are each in a superimposed state.

Sure you can infer the state of the other photon, but only after you collapse the one next to you.

tiny bit about it here, but not explanation (last sentence):

Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems. For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. However, classical information cannot be transmitted through entanglement faster than the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

just did a quick search - seems there's a difference between classical, and quantum, information.

Post by **Psyche911** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:25 pm

In addition to the points others stated in the first couple posts (haven't read the whole thread):

If you could leave a message at your current location in regards to time and space, you'd be receiving it in the exact time you create it, and it would be entirely pointless.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:26 pm

How would you observe the change of a photon light years away though visualy?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:27 pm

Psyche911 wrote:In addition to the points others stated in the first couple posts (haven't read the whole thread):

If you could leave a message at your current location in regards to time and space, you'd be receiving it in the exact time you create it, and it would be entirely pointless.

Well if it COULD be done you would have to theoreticaly look before you actualy sent the message and THEN send the message.

Post by **losCHUNK** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:27 pm

ask geordie

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:27 pm

I'd rather ask data.

Post by **losCHUNK** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:32 pm

does he support newcastle aswell ?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:33 pm

You know... there's so many places called newcastle but I've yet to run across oldcastle...

Post by **Pext** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:12 pm

lol ( lol )

Post by **Iccy (temp)** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:21 pm

First off im notice a pattern in your random thoughts, they are just common ideas that im thinking you heard when stoned sometime and forgot about, then you remember later and go ... my god im brillant. Something to think about bra.

And as far as your take on what would be a god, realize that the more we learn about the universe the simpler we find it. So in otherwords the next time your looking for god, look at the whin-o in the street, the teller at your bank the mirror in your bathroom. Think on that and decide if the representation of " god" that you see in your mirror is the one you want to be.

Post by **Uaintseenme** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:57 am

You're saying send a message outside of this universe? Don't you just mean this galaxy? I'm confused, because it sounds like you're saying that our galaxy is reborn again, I don't think the entire universe goes pop at the same time, if that were true you wouldn't see shooting stars (i.e. Another galaxy outside of ours collapsing)

Now if you could somehow send a transmitter outside of this galaxy/planatary system, and somehow have it return at this exact point in time during another cycle, then I think it would work. BUT, how would you time the transmitter to come back?? You don't know how long it'll be till this galaxy collapses and comes back.

Post by **tnf** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:45 am

Uaintseenme wrote:You're saying send a message outside of this universe? Don't you just mean this galaxy? I'm confused, because it sounds like you're saying that our galaxy is reborn again, I don't think the entire universe goes pop at the same time, if that were true you wouldn't see shooting stars (i.e. Another galaxy outside of ours collapsing)

That is not even close to what a 'shooting star' is.

Maybe check it into that for yourself..

Post by **tnf** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:44 am

[xeno]Julios wrote:
tnf wrote:Well, I guess if we look at the idea of quantum entanglement information might be transferred instantaneously...but "we" can't go faster than light..that's what I meant.

edit: actually, with quantum, information regarding the quantum state of something like a photon would be instantaneously transferred to a photon it is entangled to...so, yea, the idea of FTL information transmission is theoretically possible.
doesn't work out - there's some sort of fundamental censorship principle that prevents any information from being transfered.

I forget the details - and maybe some theorists think differently - but i seem to remember Roger Penrose (I think in Shadows of the Mind) explaining it.

Just read up on this in Greene's book. Yea, Kracus, even with quantum entanglement (which you really need to understand for this point to make any sense), no information can be transmitted at faster than light speeds. Jules - the 'censorship' is a pretty simple idea now that I have read up on it again (funny what you forget over the years). Basically, even though two things might be entangled (lets say two photons), it is impossible to encode any information using measurements of one of them. We cannot predict the outcome of any of the measurements, all we can predict is that whatever the outcome of the measurement of the local photon is, the distant one will correlate. But all these results are really just random sequences.