It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Information exchange 100'000 faster than the speed of light?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Even einstein is reading that article in awe....if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then explain this?




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
The current scientific theory is that information cannot travel faster than light, because otherwise there would be paradoxes.


Instantaneous communication means that the events of sending and receiving the information are simultaneous events at spacially separate locations. "Simultaneous events at spacially separate locations in a given reference frame," means, "Light pulses emitted from the two events could be seen at the same instant by a observer at the midway point between the events in the given reference frame." If that is not perfectly clear to you, then you need to brush up on special relativity. Einstein did, indeed, prove that events at spacially separate locations cannot be simultaneous in all reference frames. The alleged paradoxes come from scenarios in which information is assumed to travel faster than light in all directions in EVERY rest frame, or at least in two reference frames whose relative motion is not perpendicular to the line of communication.

There is nothing paradoxical about (practically) instantaneous communication in every direction in one preferred rest frame, i.e. the ether. Proof of instantaneous communication is proof of the existence of an immovable ether. If these experiments ever succeed in sending a question and getting back a meaningful answer in less time that the 2-way light travel distance, then we'll have to burn all those books that swear there is no ether.

Viewed from any other reference frame (with velocity relative to the ether which is not perpendicular to the path of the communication), the communication is NOT instantaneous. If sent in the direction of the reference frame's velocity relative to the ether, the message will arrive before it is sent (according to clocks synchronized in the moving reference frame). The time shift due to relative motion is given by Einstein's formula, t' = γ(t-(vx/c²)). Sent in the opposite direction, the time delay is equal and opposite by the same formula. If each half of a two-way communication is instantaneous relative to the ether, then the whole two-way communication is perceived as instantaneous by both parties, irrespective of their motion relative to the ether.

It's a fair guess that the CMB is stationary relative to the ether. The blueshift of the CMB in the direction of Virgo suggests that our solar system is moving in that direction at approximately 627 km/s. That corresponds to a gamma of 1.0000022, and a time shift of 7 ns/km (i.e. 7 ps/m). If the sender (A) is located 16 km farther from Virgo than the receiver (B), the instantaneous question from A should arrive at B about 112 ns before it is sent (according to Earth clocks). If B returns an answer at the same instant that he receives the question, his response should arrive at A at the same instant when A sends the question. Of course, there has to be a finite time lag for B to interpret the message, formulate the appropriate answer and send it back. Putting this system to a practical test will require a distance greater than 16 km.

There is also the matter of locating a source of entangled photons. The source must be located closer to the sender than to the receiver. For 2-way com, two sources are needed on opposite sides of the midway point, and there will be a speed-of-light delay for the distance between the two sources. Setting up such a 2-way com between Earth and the moon would require sources of entangled photons midway between Earth and the moon. Satellites can be placed in orbits which periodically pass near that mid-way point, but they cannot hover there.

For experimental purposes, perhaps you could use a photon source at L-1 and set up instantaneous 2-way com between L-4 and L-5. (Either Earth-moon L-points or Earth-sun L-pontswould suffice.) If the L-points are ever colonized, instantaneous 2-way com between them would have practical value. For now, it would merely prove the concept beyond any shadow of doubt.

If quantum entangled atoms can be harnessed for instantaneous communcation, perhaps they could be placed aboard a spacecraft on Earth and later utilized for instantaneous 2-way com between Earth and Mars---without the necessity of placing a source midway between the stations.

"Enterprise to Earth: How's the political situation back there, since we went into hybernation? Oh, yea? Sorry to hear that; the whole human species extinct? So who am I talking to?"



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


There is no ether; it's a proven fact.

Information cannot be transmitted via quantum entanglement: as soon as particles are measured, the entanglement breaks.

My question is this: how did they find out that the information was 'transmitted'? how did they measure the two particles without breaking the entanglement?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


In that case, how do we even know about quantum entanglement in the first place? If we are aware of it then information was obviously obtained.

Even if we can only measure that it breaks the entanglement, we can break it at specific intervals in order to transmit information. There is always a way, regardless of the nature of quantum mechanics and the way that particles interact with one another, if they act in a manner we can predict, then we can transmit information.
edit on 19-1-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   


In that case, how do we even know about quantum entanglement in the first place?

We know it after comparing our measurements. This is exactly the reason why it can not be used for faster-than-light information transfer.

Let's say you've got two spin entangled particles. All you know is that one of them will be spin up and the other spin down. After measuring one of them you can predict what spin the other particle will have.



Even if we can only measure that it breaks the entanglement

The only way to detect a collapse would be to ask if the other side did a measurement and what value they've observed.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


There is no ether; it's a proven fact.


I realize that you had to accept the "proofs" as valid in order to get passing grades. We've all been there. Even Einstein (in an address on 5 May, 1920) yielded to the pressure and reluctantly accepted that the ether, if it exists, is not substantive, and lacks the quality of "immovability" (which is to say, it is indistinguishable from all other inertial reference frames). Had he lived to witness proof of FTL communication, he certainly would have recanted. Now, it's time for you to study those proofs again without being under pressure to believe them. Of course, if you don't have a good intuitive understanding of special relativity, you still may not perceive the fallacies.


Information cannot be transmitted via quantum entanglement: as soon as particles are measured, the entanglement breaks.

My question is this: how did they find out that the information was 'transmitted'? how did they measure the two particles without breaking the entanglement?


I don't know how it was done by the Chinese or the Swiss, but I have seen an article outlining a method. As I vaguely recall, photons with random spin are passed thru a double slit at both ends, revealing a wave pattern. Then the photons are filtered at the sending end, permitting only those of one type spin to pass thru one of the slits. The act of filtering at the sending end disrupts the wave pattern at both ends simultaneously. I apologize if I messed up the explaination. I'll keep looking for a link to the article.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Larryman
 


Thanks for adding that



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


Then the very bottom of this wikipedia page is wrong and/or I have misinterpreted technical info?

Read "A measure of entanglement"
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


Unfortunately I don't understand one word at the bottom of that page ... :-( Could you give me a short version what they're trying to explain ...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Measuring the breaks, breaks the entanglement? Well, there we go, a binary system of 1's and 0's; where 1 can represent on or off or 0 can. So information can be obtained, the only thing left to do is figure out if you want the information on the photon that exists or not. Since information is obtained, entanglement breaks, and the theory can work, then why even ask this question, since we already know it.

Wait a minute, this is assuming that information is sent and received in the same reference frame? But, what if, it's not? Perhaps entanglement breaks in the "present" time-frame, but exists in all others, much like an inversion?

That's how it works, right?

Here is an article, dated January 17, 2011, which illustrates this unique phenomena. But aren't thoughts faster than light, hence quantum photons as thought, being sent or received to and from from another temporal reality or universe? We exist here, but we're "out-there" in the past and future; it depends on your frame of reference, but also this begs the question of just how-far does "pre-visualization" and "visualization" go in the human soul and mind? To Be or Not To Be, now that is a question!

Source: Read the article from TechReview.

URL: www.technologyreview.com...

Seems logical...
edit on 21-1-2011 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Well, I don't really understand it either so I am on the same page as you. I was referring to this part though, which is what I may be misinterpreting:


Entropy provides one tool which can be used to quantify entanglement, although other entanglement measures exist.


This testimony is actually pretty interesting concerning quantum entanglement. If you have the time to read all that it is well worth it, take what you want from it:

astroengineer.wordpress.com...

It may look like a well made, albeit technically correct and thorough work of fiction or it may imply that we already communicate with quantum entanglement in secrecy.
edit on 22-1-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


Are you a physicist? Just curious ...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


Astroengineer was a hoaxer imho.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


I don't know if he is or not, but his story was interesting as hell to read. Seems like he put a lot of thought into it, I guess that could argue a point either way.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Oh goodness no, no formal training in physics, but do have degrees in computer science and film...with a minor in mass communication. Does that help?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


Thanks for clearing that up.

Thoughts are transmitted as electro-chemical impulses (synapses) and are therefore considerably slower than the speed of light. Me thinks ...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Just a note though, if it were possible to reach those kinds of speeds, 100000 X lightspeed, it would put us in alpha centuri within 23 minutes... which is not to shabby as my bus to work takes 45



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bluwindRD
 


Heh, I did a little math too when I was first reading this post. If I can remember right by the time something going that speed reached the center of the galaxy something traveling light speed won't even have reached the Oort cloud, it will have only gone 0.27ly.
edit on 25-1-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I read somewhere (perhaps watched,) that quantum computing, the "quantum bits" can have the value of "1," "0," or "both."

So they can be either, or, and both, which is a convenient format.

So the "qubits" can be any data value is needed?

They say, that "qubits" are very touchy and a stray electron can upset a calculation? But instantaneous transfer of information is revolutionary. I have a hunch this phenomena relates directly to dualities in singularities? Where if a person were to fall into a Black Hole, to the external observer, the person would seem to "stop?" And the other part of the duality would seem to "spin-off" scaled versions of itself exponentially? I hope I am describing it correctly.

So, following breadcrumbs here, if information is indeed retained at a singularity, and that information was light, an unknown transport mechanism exists, for the information to propagate. Does there seem to be an element of some kind of "pressure?" Propagation is an "active" function, while "reception" is more or less, passive. Propagation of information through a time-plane-space framework? Analog to Digital or vice-verse?

The "double-slit" light test is fascinating; but there is something to learn in this experiment.

Light is shone on a sheet with two slits cut-out and 3 dark lines (from the slit's shadow - could this be an interference pattern) appear to be projected from the two slitted sheet, but when "light meters" are placed near the wall, the pattern shows 1 dark line instead of 3 when no metering was conducted.

I'd be very curious to see a 3D (4D) video of a photon of light as a particle and waveform at the same time, perhaps our "perspective" is way too slow to understand the very very high sampling rate of a photon, to see its true interaction? Just thinking about conversion rates boggle my mind. I think some company has a patent for conversion of sound to light, it's very interesting!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


I can't seem to work up the patience to think about quantum entanglement right now, but you might be interested in this regarding Black Holes:

cosmology.berkeley.edu...

Assuming you haven't read it already of course.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join