16 Aug 2007 > We don't have flying cars yet > No, it's not real.

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

These studies are not fully understood. With engtanglement, you aren't physically moving an object instantly from one place to another. Some how entangled particles share the same properties even when separated by great distances. So if you change the property of one particle in Boston, its entangled partner particle in London will be changed as well. This would not violate the universal speed limit as nothing is being physically moved in space.

There are many things we don't understand about the universe. Who knows, Einstein might be wrong about everything. Old theories get disproved all the time.

What they might have been on to prove is that information can travel instantanous and is not limited to the speed of light.

Imagine an internet without latency... =D

Quantum computing will be awesome as well if they can get it to work. :D

it'd be like everyone moved to sweden, minus the girls. damn it, we still lose.

AFAIK, he didn't say you can't travel faster than the speed of light, if that's what you were referring to.

fyi the story in the OP is nothing to do with entanglement - that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

Everyone should read "A Brief History Of Time" by Stephen Hawking, great book

yeah, the paperback version is awesome for toilet reading

He's disabled you cripple-hating scum.

I was being serious!



also tribute to becks!

thanks!

but why? O.o

should have mailed it to me ;)

dunno, had an empty bottle of becks. Made more sense while drunk

that is the ultimate proof:

I help with understanding physics! \o/

"For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving."
delicious bullshit cake, good to feed no clue readers imagination

It would also theoretically make my penis bigger than everyone else's!!!

is it also bigger if I put my magnifier on it?

I am very curious as to how they measured this since light takes about 1.667820476e-6ms to travel that distance.

yea this is the first question I had in mind and also quantum tunneling has been known for quite some time.

Also the article is old (2007) and this wikipedia entry clarifies my suspicion that they measured the wrong velocity ( group veolicty of light is the one that can not be broken)

I'm no physicist, was just interested in the kind of apparatus they use to differentiate those kinds of time intervals..

http://abstrusegoose.com/108

/kill

excuse me while i wiki the speed of light then badly paraphrase what i've read.

I always find it very funny how they speak of "breaking a physical law". Obviously if it can be broken, then the law is not fully correct - or has not been researched to its full extent. I know, petty details ;(

I don't understand all the physics anyway. But wouldn't moving faster than light just be moving faster than light and nothing else (aside of it being a tremendous achievement)?

afaik If you was able to able to run faster than light, you could run, stop, do a 180° rotation & see you coming (if your eyes were able to see OVER 9000 fps)

But when they say "arrive at a destination before leaving" they are wrong it would just looks like it...

tbh that depends on the way you define time.

E=mc²/SQR(1-v²/c²) says you gotta be one strong motherfucka to do it.

And yes particle accelerators do show that that is true.


However, gogin on a theoretical limb here I think you could be faster than your own image as Hellkey described. Since the speed of light in certain types of glass is much slower than in a vacuum. So if you have your image being transmitted in the lglass and you run in the vaccum you could do it! Just have to train to run about 160 000 kmh or ask Usain to do it. ;)

you can get light down to walking speed with the right materials as far as I've been told at uni

past, present and future are defined via speed of light in special relativity, and a shitload of equations are build with/around c. if it turns out to not be the limit, you run into serious problems in many regards.

I do not think speed of light is the fundamental limit. It is just something us humans are able to observe quite accurately and fit it into our equations for laws of physics. The real limit may have something to do with maximum speed of information transfer imo.

Another thought experiment i came up with:

Suppose you exist outside of our universe and are able to observe all 4 dimensions (3d + time) just like humans can observe 3d.

When you look at our universe from that outside position, what shape do you think it would have in respect to time axis?

Would it be a < | shaped cone, beginning at the Big Bang and ending in massive amount of possible outcomes? Or would it be a < | > shaped double-cone that begins at the only possible initial state of Big Bang, evolves into a massive amount of possible outcomes of the initial state, but then turns out to start reducing into the only possible final state?

how do you know that time is linear?

Because i perceive it that way. What do you think an universe with non-linear time function woul look like? I can only imagine it as a clusterfuck of infinite loops and paradoxes.

same thing for the speed of light not being fundamental ;)

That did not help me imagine it. Can you come up with a rough description instead of a smartass reply based on unrelated post? ;)

no, smartass is what I do.

Your definition of "shape" is only possible on a 3 dimensional field, and such an observation would be unlike anything you can possibly imagine.

"Information transfer" is how all matter works, and is limited by the speed of light. Exploitation of higher dimensions (of which there are 11) may sidestep this limit, but not break it.

I guess i was not being accurate enough. Lets say you are not observing the universe itself but a graph of the universe with time (Planck time sized ticks since the Big Bang) on X axis and a number of possible unique states on Y axis.

This would make the first graph, 'the cone' Y = 2^X (or similar, just to imagine the shape) into infinity.

The second graph, 'the double cone' would look like Y=2^X for the first half, hit a maximum number of possible unique states at Y=max (possibly but not necessarily midway) and then reduce (symmetrically or asymmetrically) to hit Y=X at X=max, some sort of Big Gnab.

Are you speaking in terms of string theory, or just an infinite alternate universe model?

Not an expert on either but i guess the second one is closer to the way i project it in my head.

Think of big bang as the moment when the first variable appears. Then, with every tick, a new decision is made and a new variable is added, effectively creating a set of alternate universes.

T=0...{a}
T=1...{a,b}
T=2...{a,b,c}
...

where a, b, c,... are all the possible combinations of 1's and 0's
unique possible outcome is therefore an unique combination of 1's and 0's
the number of 'alternate universes' is then number of those unique combinations

To restate the original question, do you think this would keep going until the end T=max...{a,b,c,...,max} or would it start collapsing somewhere along the way to end back up at T=max...{a}?

I see what you're saying, but it's more like wild speculation. You're putting the limit on higher dimensions under the idea that the 3rd dimension (and one of time) governs the rest. It would really be the opposite.

Anyway, in the idea that you are talking about with the ability to see this from an outside source is actually unnecessary. If you were to describe it in 3 dimensional terms, you wouldn't need to be an outside viewer, since it can only be described in 3 dimensional terms.

I always imagined it's both at the same time. I visualize it as a web with an anchor point in the middle, that anchor being Big Bang, the first variable. Now, assuming time is non-linear (even if we do not experience it as such), every variable that is created after the first collapses after generating alternate possibilities, even going back before the first one, since a state of non-existance is negated as soon as the first variable was spawned. In effect, the web bends backwards as an infinite series of big bangs, with the secondary variables and the variables after those ceasing to exist after expanding to other possibilities, looping each thread around the anchor, thus self perpetuating infinity of breaking down an recreating possibilities.

It's easier to visualize if you think of it as being inside an always rotating broken kaleidoscope with a series of floating dots at it's center. Sorry if i'm rambling i'm a bit drunk. :D

what you smoke. I want.

ooh, those dots are glowing and pretty.

This idea is fantasy, though. There is nothing that even remotely backs this up scientifically. You make the same assumption that HELL did with the idea that, for some reason, the third dimension has dominion over all others, and even higher dimensions. The "big bang" is an event that only breaks down at the 3rd dimensional observation point.

I know, i know. However, i like the notions that time is non-linear, there is an intermediate state of existance (the possibility) and that all three states (does not exist, could exist, exists) can 'be' simultaneously, albeit on different strings of time. I'm not that crazy to claim it's even remotely plausible, though, i just like to think that's how it works. :)

That's awfully theist.

Aye, well, a man has to believe in something. I figure, if it's not God, i'd go for a ridiculous model of existence. Plus, if it turns out to be true, i'll get immense bragging rights. :P

"Exploitation of higher dimensions (of which there are 11)"

thought there were 10.

You're right, most consider there to be 10 dimensions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw is a simple explanation of all ten dimensions.

I believe it was 11 dimensions that unified string theory.