| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mike3" |
| Date: |
27 Feb 2006 10:43:31 PM |
| Object: |
Quantum entanglement |
Hi.
I have a question: If quantum entanglement could be used to send
information directly (Although this doesn't seem possible at least with
current knowledge of physics), how would this violate causality? The
information would travel at infinite speed, so it would arrive
instantaneously, not 1 second back in time or whatever, providing no
"wiggle room" to screw up the timeline.
.
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement |
28 Feb 2006 12:16:03 AM |
|
|
"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141101811.383590.249530@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Hi.
I have a question: If quantum entanglement could be used to send
information directly (Although this doesn't seem possible at least with
current knowledge of physics), how would this violate causality? The
information would travel at infinite speed, so it would arrive
instantaneously, not 1 second back in time or whatever, providing no
"wiggle room" to screw up the timeline.
The gist of the paradox is that if the FTL radios were moving
relativistically with respect to each other there would arise a situation
where because of general relativity one radio would get shifted into the
other radio's future. Then it would be able to transmit a signal into the
past and violate causality. This and other so-called paradoxes are just
examples of lazy thinking - providing an excuse for so-called smart people
to avoid thinking about the true implications of FTL communications. The
causalty paradoxes simply evaporate when brought under the scruteny of a
careful and logical thinker. You are correct in your thoughts, there are NO
problems when communicators are linked superluminally as long as the
propagation time is zero. In actuality, this is exactly what happens in
naturally entangled systems - information is transmitted at infinite speed
despite the fact that the ends of the linked system are moving
relativistically with respect to each other. You are wrong thinking that
"...it doesn't seem possible with the current knowledge in physics". In
fact, the information needed to build a FTL communications system is fully
contained in Quantum Mechanics. We could have built FTL radios 20 ~ 30 years
ago if we had not misinterpreted the easiest to understand experiment in QM,
the double slit experiment. The fact that we did and continue to do so even
today is what's going to make us ( scientists living today, that is) a
historical laughing stock to our descendants. If you want to know more and
rise above the veretible oceanfull of cloudy headed numbnuts, check out the
information on my web site: www.allocations.cc
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Lean how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement |
28 Feb 2006 12:46:43 AM |
|
|
I think that any type of timetravel would violate causality.
If timetravel were possible, then you could concievably have something
like a "causal loop". Like a loop in a program that never ends, and
that's perpetual motion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement |
28 Feb 2006 01:34:16 AM |
|
|
action without elapse of time ---should be dead by arrival!!
causality should be one of the main corner stones
of physics
and save us a lot of ball boggling !!
(science fiction is another 'Aldorado' of money making on suckers)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement |
01 Mar 2006 12:57:52 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
action without elapse of time ---should be dead by arrival!!
No doubt about it whatsoever.
causality should be one of the main corner stones
of physics
Absolutely. And add to that the uniqueness of physical objects.
But I also think that causality must obey some type of arithmetic.
For example - the 9ball can collide with the 7ball. Or, the 9ball and
the 8ball can "simultaneously" collide with the 7ball. It's just like
arithmetic. It might even form a field or a ring or something, maybe a
group. I dunno.
Then, if some causes and some effects are sub-Planck scale, then
you have a very natural explanation of an order-disorder continuum. But
hope it does not violate any laws of thermodynamics.
and save us a lot of ball boggling !!
(science fiction is another 'Aldorado' of money making on suckers)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement |
28 Feb 2006 06:14:36 PM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
If quantum entanglement could be used to send
information directly (Although this doesn't seem possible at least with
current knowledge of physics), how would this violate causality?
Either it would violate causality or it would supply an empirical notion of
absolute simultaneity. The former is considered a logical impossibility, the
latter merely violates Lorentz symmetry.
More precisely, given spacelike separated events A and B, can A send
information to B or can B send information to A? If neither, you preserve
Lorentz symmetry. If both, you have a causality loop (impossible). If just
one of the two, you have a physically meaningful time ordering more precise
than you can get from Lorentz symmetry.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement |
28 Feb 2006 08:37:11 PM |
|
|
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
mike3 wrote:
If quantum entanglement could be used to send
information directly (Although this doesn't seem possible at least with
current knowledge of physics), how would this violate causality?
Either it would violate causality or it would supply an empirical notion of
absolute simultaneity. The former is considered a logical impossibility, the
latter merely violates Lorentz symmetry.
More precisely, given spacelike separated events A and B, can A send
information to B or can B send information to A? If neither, you preserve
Lorentz symmetry. If both, you have a causality loop (impossible). If just
one of the two, you have a physically meaningful time ordering more precise
than you can get from Lorentz symmetry.
-- Ben
Hmmm... but wouldn't the "spooky action" itself, although it cannot be
witnessed directly until after it happens, and only "transmits" random
data, occur with "absolute simultaneity"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
