Nothing is faster than light - really?

a reply to: luthier

Anything with mass in our physical reality, macro-universe wont go faster than light. Physics pretty much dictates such.

Light(Photons) lack mass, plenty of energy and momentum through.

Only way humanity will ever travel faster than light is to somehow negate mass completly or circumvent relativity via some kind of Albecurrie drive concept.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Think it's the space-time around those stars that appears to be traveling faster than light, allegedly down to expansion.

If correct, then space-time appears to travel faster than light, even through light in that space-time is still limited to 186,282 miles per second(Speed of light in a vacum).

It's rather interesting.

What about when I'm driving my car at say 70 mph and turn on the headlights.
Are the lights not traveling 70 mph faster than the speed of light?

a reply to: skunkape23

No the lights are going at 70 mph whether or not you turn them on.

The light from them is traveling at c (the speed of light) whether you are driving at 70 or 1 mph.

That's what makes it weird.



It sort of like asking of the sound from your horn (if you honk it) is going at the speed of sound + 70 mph. But not quite.

originally posted by: TheMadTitan
a reply to: johnb

When you open your eyes, the only reason you can see anything is because light is bouncing off of objects into them and on to your retina. If the light doesn't reach your eye, you don't see it.

Yep. Seeing is passive not active. Our eyes receive light and then interpret a small fraction of the light spectrum that our eyes received.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DanDanDat

Well now we have a definition problem.

Like time. Time is not age.

So sure entanglement does not travel in the sense of point A to B like an arrow.

However practically speaking it's 100k times faster than light in terms of clocking.


Just like long distance space travel would most likely not occur by going faster than light. As in negative matter concepts.


dailynexus.com...

Some interesting research.

Even if you want to look at it purely from a 3 dimetimtional stand point. At best the time required to send information through quantum entanglement will still be no faster than the time required to send that same information with light.

Your 100k figure is not measuring an apple to an apple.

Quantum entanglement requires you to first entangle two "particles" and than move one of the entangled pair to a remote destination. The time to make that three dimensional movement still must adhere to the theory that you cant move it faster than light speed.

You might as well move your information by light if you still have to pay the time cost to send your entangled practical to a remote destination.

a reply to: johnb

The speed of nerve impulses is pretty fast too. Definitely slower than light.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: skunkape23

No the lights are going at 70 mph whether or not you turn them on.

The light from them is traveling at c (the speed of light) whether you are driving at 70 or 1 mph.

That's what makes it weird.



It sort of like asking of the sound from your horn (if you honk it) is going at the speed of sound + 70 mph. But not quite.

The way I wrap my brain around it is to think of time in freeze frames and the light and the lightbulbs as two distinct objects in those frames.

In Frame 1 the lightbulb and the light "particle" it is emitting are at the exact same point in space.

By Frame 2 the lightbulb will have moved a distance equal to the percent of time between frames relative to 70mph. While the light particle has moved a distance equal to the percent of time between frames relative to C. Prior to the emotion the photon did not exist and so does not carry with it the 70mph momentum.

It's the not the same as throwing a ball from the car. That ball has existed for long before it was thrown and is caring the 70mph momentum prior to the throw.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
All that light from trillions of stars would just blend together?

Apparently there are stars so far away that their light hasn't reached us yet, and because of the expanding universe they're moving away at a pretty good clip so the light will never reach us in time for us to detect it.

I listened to a talk on Youtube that discussed the "luck" we have in making the discoveries we are doing "now" because the universe is still "small enough" that other galaxies can be seen, and we can still detect radio signals from the Big Bang - which will fade ever so gradually over billions of years.

Unless something checks the expansion process (which is accelerating, not steady or slowing), then inevitably, over another 14 billion years, we will lose sight of all but our galaxy. Any society coming to "evolve" at that point, one that reaches the technology we have now, would have no means of detecting an expanding universe, or the other galaxies, they are "lost over the envelope." Thus, their best scientists, using the best technology we now presently have, could figure out QM, E=MC2, etc., be very smart. But, they would also think that the "Miklyway-Andromeda" (let's say it's our galaxy after it collides as our hypothetical) was the entirety of the universe, and they would not be able to detect expansion, thus have no way of knowing that their own galaxy is moving (bc they will be moving with it). These smart scientists will not know that not only is their galaxy not the "only one" - but that the universe has 200 billion, minimum, just like them. They will just be forever out of reach for that society, unless they learn of an FTL means from a more advanced society.

I found it interesting to consider that way, it had never occurred to me. We don't often think in what scientists call "Deep time" meaning billions of years.

The other thing that I like to consider, John Wheeler, greatest post-Einstein physicist, spent the last years of his life contemplating the meaning behind the "delayed choice" experiment in QM. The light particle from that star 10 billion years away "knew" you as a conscious observer would be looking at it 10 billion years later - the delayed choice experiment demonstrates that even a wave collapses to a particle every time a person "chooses" to observe it, even if the choice was made after the particle had been released.

Thus, Wheeler believes that large sections of the universe that have not been "observed" or "measured" have no stars, no galaxies, are nothing more than infinitely varying "probability waves" - and will remains so, until someone "sees" them (aliens or us) - probably millions/billions of years into the future, and thus start to form now.

The existential question, what it means that consciousness and observation is so inextricably bound to the universe and matter itself, is the most fascinating of our time, to me. I am not "looking for a reason" to believe in a god or creating power, I am being "pulled to it" because I can't otherwise explain why a universe requires conscious observers.

It is also critical that we have evolved to "see" only a tiny fraction of the energy/matter in the universe, we "see" light only in certain frequencies, we're limited in the "size" of things we see, we're limited in the dimensions we see (In fact, we may "see" one more than the one in which we exist, we may only exist in a 2 dimensional "hologram" portion of the universe, that we "perceive" as 3d, but may have as many as 10.

Last (promise), I have not heard of a quantum entanglement experiment "communicating" instantaneously. QE can send "information" but - so far as I have heard - it is "useless" information, since the "spin" of either particle could not have been known prior to collapsing the wave. You would know that someone collapsed the wave, you'd know the spin of both particles (they'd be opposites), but since you'd have not known the spin of each previously, it is "useless" information.

That's the last I heard.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DanDanDat

Well now we have a definition problem.

Like time. Time is not age.

So sure entanglement does not travel in the sense of point A to B like an arrow.

However practically speaking it's 100k times faster than light in terms of clocking.


Just like long distance space travel would most likely not occur by going faster than light. As in negative matter concepts.


dailynexus.com...

Some interesting research.

Even if you want to look at it purely from a 3 dimetimtional stand point. At best the time required to send information through quantum entanglement will still be no faster than the time required to send that same information with light.

Your 100k figure is not measuring an apple to an apple.

Quantum entanglement requires you to first entangle two "particles" and than move one of the entangled pair to a remote destination. The time to make that three dimensional movement still must adhere to the theory that you cant move it faster than light speed.

You might as well move your information by light if you still have to pay the time cost to send your entangled practical to a remote destination.

Well it turns out you have no idea what you are talking about.

Scientists have sent I formation including photons by quantum teleportation. And they arrive faster than light.

It's also probable energy is going to be next. The experiment is currently under way.


As we speak quantum teleportaruon is working from orbit to a mountain in the Tibetan plateu by the Chinese. The satellite is able to teleport qubits of info ftl. The info is travelling between two entangled particles.

It also appears the warp drive is moving forward slowly but surely. From this year.

Furthermore, if the intensity of the space warps can be oscillated over time, the energy required is reduced even more, White found.

"The findings I presented today change it from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation," White told SPACE.com. "The additional energy reduction realized by oscillating the bubble intensity is an interesting conjecture that we will enjoy looking at in the lab."

When I was a lot younger, I could turn off the bedroom light by the door and be in bed before dark...a reply to: johnb

a reply to: luthier

Scientists have sent I formation including photons by quantum teleportation. And they arrive faster than light.

No. The term "quantum teleportation" is layspeak for quantum entanglement, btw.

No photons have been sent via "teleportation." Entangled photons were sent (at the speed of light) to different locations. The only thing "teleported" would be the quantum states of those photons. When one of the photons is "read", its entangled counterpart will take on the same state. Instantaneously, pretty much. But as pointed out, that really doesn't communicate any information.

www.sciencemag.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: luthier

Scientists have sent I formation including photons by quantum teleportation. And they arrive faster than light.

No. The term "quantum teleportation" is layspeak for quantum entanglement, btw.

No photons have been sent via "teleportation." Entangled photons were sent (at the speed of light) to different locations. The only thing "teleported" would be the quantum states of those photons.
www.sciencemag.org...

Quantum teleportation is a process by which quantum information (e.g. the exact state of an atom or photon) can be transmitted (exactly, in principle) from one location to another, with the help of classical communication and previously shared quantum entanglement between the sending and receiving location.

a reply to: luthier

Like I said:

The only thing "teleported" would be the quantum states of those photons.

Did you not see this part of your quote?

with the help of classical communication

Without that "classical communication" (at the speed of light), no useful information is transmitted.


Your source (which you forgot to link)

Teleportation also requires a classical information channel to be established, as two classical bits must be transmitted to accompany each qubit. The reason for this is that the results of the measurements must be communicated, and this must be done over ordinary classical communication channels.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: luthier

Scientists have sent I formation including photons by quantum teleportation. And they arrive faster than light.

No. The term "quantum teleportation" is layspeak for quantum entanglement, btw.

No photons have been sent via "teleportation." Entangled photons were sent (at the speed of light) to different locations. The only thing "teleported" would be the quantum states of those photons. When one of the photons is "read", its entangled counterpart will take on the same state. Instantaneously, pretty much. But as pointed out, that really doesn't communicate any information.

www.sciencemag.org...

You are correct.

And, I am also not aware of any "useful" information sent vie quantam-entanglement; again, without the ability to know spin direction, or up/down, prior to collapsing the wave, you only know that they "looked" or "measured" and you would know what they found bc it would be the opposite of yours, but since you didn't know which was which beforehand, it does no one any use. You can't convert to 1 or 0, or Open/Close

a reply to: Phage

The photon in the quantum state is able to contain information that can be transmitted faster than light as in a fiver optic cable.

When the photon in the quantum state is entangled it moves faster than a physical photon would.

This is the basic quantum computing premise and why it can move faster than physical photons. The qubit can move faster than light.

a reply to: luthier

When the photon in the quantum state is entangled it moves faster than a physical photon would.

No. Photons, entangled or not, travel at c.

The qubit can move faster than light.

A qubit represents a quantum state. A qubit does not travel anywhere.

originally posted by: johnb
So pretty much everybody agrees nothing can travel at the speed of light let alone exceed it.

However does sight not?

I open my eyes and can see stars from billions of light years away instantly. Now i understand that that light has been travelling that long and i am seeing where it was, that long ago but can you appreciate what I am trying to explain/ ask?

When you open your eyes you instantly see everything from the close to almost infinitely far away with no lag from distant objects.

This might just be sophistry but it's something i have occasionally pondered for years.

So you see lets say 10 miles, so how fast does it take light to go 10 miles since it travels 186,000 MPH per second.

Actually there is something that is instant, FTL and it is not your eyes.

a reply to: Phage

Yes my mistake. Photons in the quantum state can transmit the information faster than light.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phage

Yes my mistake. Photons in the quantum state can transmit the information faster than light.

Photons are always in a "quantum state." But yes, the particular quantum state of entangled particles is transmitted instantaneously but that is not information that can be used for communication (or any other purpose) on its own.