< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 202 OF 202 ·
|Nov-26-13|| ||twinlark: <However, once entangled quantum particles have been brought to Titan from Earth, instantaneous communication of info now can be achieved between Earth and Titan.|
There seems to be other ways by which instantaneous communication can be achieved using quantum mechanical effects.>
So the way past the c-limit is by bypassing it altogether, rather than passing through it, right?
I saw this idea first in a science fiction novel written nearly 30 years ago called Ender's Game, in which the communicating device - labeled an ansible - was taken with the ships from Earth as they spent years traveling interstellar space, so they could stay in contact with Earth.
Is this a fudge factor or not? Information gos from point A to point B instantaneously. I don't see how that is not violating c. It seems a bit schizophrenic to me. Maybe it creates a potential difference analogous to that of an open circuit waiting to be closed?
<I am not sure if the original brain automatically gets destroyed in the entanglement process.>
It probably becomes a voluntary function akin to that we use on word processors, ie the difference between Copy and Paste on the one hand (preserving the original), or Cut and Paste on the other (whereby the original is destroyed).
At the very least this would create interesting ethical conundrums.
|Nov-26-13|| ||twinlark: <It seems reasonable to me that in another billion years or two, this civilization could have set up FTL communication stations in most stellar systems that could potentially harbor life into which this civilization is expanding into or wishes to explore.>|
Yes. But there is a difference between acquiring this information instantaneously via an FTL ansible, and actually doing something about it, unless there is say a trigger in the ansible that can set off a weapon that could destroy any planet or solar system that such sapients deem threatening.
That might be easy enough, but to actively exploit the Earth after an ansible monitor reveals our presence would still be limited by the constraints imposed by c, unless of course large scale macroscopic teleportation make it possible for such people to arrive here at will. Assuming of course they're willing to kill themselves in return for the resurrection of a copy of themselves.
Maybe advanced androids would be sent through so there is no actual death of a sapient involved in the transportation process?
|Nov-26-13|| ||twinlark: Or possibly they might just employ the copy and paste option.|
|Nov-26-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: Information goes from point A to point B instantaneously.>|
My knowledge on this and your other messages are admittedly fuzzy. From what I have read the above proposition cannot happen. Info can be communicated from A to B only at speed of light c or slower.
I also do know that FTL phenomena occur in the quantum world all the time. The EPR entangled photons is one example.
The classic example might be the phenomenon of electrons jumping from one orbital level to another instantaneously as they whiz around an atom. Apply enough energy to an atom and an electron might instantaneously disappear from an inner orbital shell and reappear on a more outer one. In the macroscopic world, it's like a lightning bolt striking a pedestrian, who disappears from one side of the the street and reappears on the other side instantaneously, zero time elapsing. These relativity defying quantum phenomena caused Schrodinger to retire as he allegedly said he could not stand the thought of electrons jumping around in zero time.
Another example is the one I mentioned above. Superconductivity and superfluidity is fundamentally quantum phenomena being observed at the macroscopic level.
|Nov-26-13|| ||technical draw: <My knowledge on this and your other messages are admittedly fuzzy.>|
Fuzzy logic? Sorry to break into the stream but, hey, it's been done to me. Anyway it proves that someone else is reading this interesting conversation.
|Nov-26-13|| ||dakgootje: <visayanbraindoctor: <dakgootje> Could you elaborate more?>|
If I remember correct, whatever exactly happens depends on the exact interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which there are multiple.
So supposedly the many worlds-proponents would say the result of measuring one entangled particle will split off realities; and I thought one theory mentioned that the information that the entangled particles is already contained, however at a scale smaller than the planck length such that we can not observe it.
In any case, it might be useful to note how to define ftl information transfer. Say we have a particle A at Earth and entangled particle B at the moon. If we measure the spin of particle A, then the spin particle B will immediately assume the reciprochal spin. Which would be ftl.
But we can not impart data on the unmeasured particle or influence upfront how it will spin. Therefore we can not send information ourselves ftl using the particles. The best we could do is say "If particle B spins counterclockwise, register as YES" - whereby the information ascribed would be utterly random.
Perhaps there'd be some better method, for instance the timing at which we measure to bear significance - but even so the obtained ftl information would be ascribed to the measurement of the particle. Not be inherent in the particle, which would be random, so from a particle point of view no information can be send ftl.
Anyway, I thought that was the general gist of it.
There are some.. uhh what are they called, I think delayed choice quantum eraser variation of the doubleslit experiments. Whereby one of the particles can be read at an arbitrarily late point. So you'd think it'd be possible to communicate depending on whether or not the slits have been observed.
However, if I remember correctly, to figure this out you'd need to correlate both entangled particles. So it isn't supposed to work - though I forgot why.
|Nov-27-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <dakgootje> Do you think that other quantum mechanical effects that manifest in the macroscopic world can be utilized to effect FTL communication? For instance, see my above post: |
<There seems to be other ways by which instantaneous communication can be achieved using quantum mechanical effects. I am not certain of this but I have read that in a superconductive (or superfluid) object, changes in the quantum state of its particles at one end is somehow 'known' instantaneously by other quantum particles at its other end, which correspondingly instantaneously also change their quantum state. If true, it would imply that if we can build a superconductive cylindrical object from the Earth to the Moon, we would be able to instantaneously convey info to the other end of the object, located on the Moon, and vice versa.>
|Nov-29-13|| ||dakgootje: <I am not certain of this but I have read that in a superconductive (or superfluid) object, changes in the quantum state of its particles at one end is somehow 'known' instantaneously by other quantum particles at its other end, which correspondingly instantaneously also change their quantum state.>|
Yeah, there's the thing with infinite thermal conductivity in superfluids. However, if I remember correctly, temperature stabilizes still 'only' with the speed of light.
Uhmm but in general: <Do you think that other quantum mechanical effects that manifest in the macroscopic world can be utilized to effect FTL communication?>
I don't really know. The reason I don't know, is because I don't know how much we do and do not know.
That is, it is often stated that no information can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. But why?
Has it been proven to be impossible?
Or is it that current theories aren't adequate for telling what/how that would happen [akin to mysteries around the plancklength]?
Or is it because current theories are incredibly elegant; or similarly that causality would be unthingably odd and complicated?
I've often heard sentiments in general similar to the latter; nature's laws are very elegant and in essence simple - so they are probably correct. Which is belief. Nature is what nature does - if we'd one day know everything there is to know about how nature works, and it is unfanthomly complicated, then that's nature. It would only be nifty for us, if it's elegant and easy.
Similarly, last year I did a bit of reading up on theoretical possibilities of time travel. And one recurring sentiment was that it would make the world weird and paradoxical.
Welcome to quantum effects.
There was that report last year about a macroscopic quantum effect; whereby a visible needle-like thing was measured to both vibrate and not vibrate. Which is weird and paradoxial - and rather in line with quantum effects. But we aren't used to them and find them counterintuitive.
So I think elegance and intuition are very very bad reasons for discarding ftl, time travel etc.
So that leaves whether it'd be theoretically impossible; or only incompatible with current theories.
I learn towards that quantum effects aren't wellunderstood enough yet to discount applications. So <if> ftl would at some point become feasible, I'd fully expect the breakthrough from some subatomic or qm solution.
Which actually reminds me. There are hypothised to be particles called tachyons that travel perpetually ftl and can't slow down to below ftl. Who knows, perhaps they do indeed exist and some utter genius manages to communicate using them via some kind of entanglement. I don't know.
So yeah - I lean towards the opinion that we simply don't know enough yet to discard ftl. But of course, my own knowledge of physics is rather limited :)
|Nov-29-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <dakgootje> I have even read of a hypothesis that the whole Universe exists only because intelligent entities observe it. In one version of quantum theory, quantum reality consists of probability waves that only 'collapse' into distinct particles only if observed by a conscious being.|
|Dec-02-13|| ||dakgootje: Yeah, I think probability waves collapsing into particles is a rather widely accepted view - and quite central in those double slit experiments.|
There have been some philophies about things only existing when observed. Think solipsism was the strongest view, wherein only the believer exists - and the rest of the world is their imagination. Which is hard to argue against - after all, how to disprove it? Though of course philosophers have tried [didn't even Wittgenstein?]; stating that there'd be no requirement for things unknown to said observer.
Think such ideas mostly belong to the realm of.. shall we say philosophy, and general public creative thoughts. After all, if such ideas would occur in a QM-context, then consciousness would have to be defined; somehow bounds decided upon et cetera. Which would be odd -to introduce such a big concept- when it has no place or purpose in other physics/qm-areas. So I suppose it'd be occam razored away.
|Dec-03-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <dakgootje: if such ideas would occur in a QM-context, then consciousness would have to be defined> If you would scroll several pages up, there is an interesting discussion on consciousness. IMO it is one of the great mysteries of the Universe.|
|Dec-07-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark>
The document below is one of the most cited in the internet when it comes to planetary science, geochemistry, and astrophysics.
It estimates the relative abundances of every stable isotope of every element in the solar system, and theorizes how these abundances came to be.
These abundances are also assumed to partially reflect those in most parts of the Milky way galaxy.
Table 6, which lists <the relative abundances of every stable isotope of every element in the solar system> is particularly convenient and useful. Someone wants to know to know the abundance of the isotope Uranium 235 in the solar system, today and 4.55 billion years ago? Just look at the end of the table.
There have been updates on these elemental abundances in more recent papers, but almost all of them still quote this work.
|Dec-07-13|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
Thanks, it's the kind of list in which I take guilty pleasure in scrutinising.
|Dec-07-13|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Doggimus> jinx I was just looking at that list too. It's great eh?|
I'm curious why this is a "guilty pleasure" for you?
Long time lurker, first time poster.
|Dec-07-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> I have downloaded this paper into my computer. Many works by astronomers and planetary scientists that we read become more understandable with knowledge of these isotopic abundances.|
It's relevant even in the search for alternative energy. For instance, one can easily see that Uranium-235 is the rarest of the fissionable energy sources. It's so much rarer than the precious metals platinum, rhodium, and gold by several magnitudes. In a sense using U-235 is like burning platinum and gold for energy. (Although we have to consider that Uranium is more abundant in the Earth's crust than platinum and gold.)
Thorium on the other hand is much more abundant than Uranium-235 by about a thousand times.
|Dec-07-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <jessicafischerqueen> Glad you like the list too. It hits on a basic yearning of human historical curiosity. Just what is the material universe made of, and by how much of each element?|
|Dec-07-13|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
I suspect the problems of changing from U to Th powered reactors is analogous to several other rational transitions that never occurred.
The public policy process has by and large morphed into a corporate funding model of society which favours entrenched paradigms. I see it as rationalism vs rationality.
Rationalism being more about the pursuit of short term policy objectives that favour entrenched interests including stock holders, as distinct from rationality in which long term policy objectives favour broader community interests (which are by definition decentralised) that would be supportive of preserving the world's ecosystems for the future profit of humanity rather than the short term profits of corporates and their governmental shills.
This is IMO exacerbated by the transition of bureaucratic plutocracy into something resembling a global kleptocracy.
Nelson Mandela was able, with the help of his supporters, to dismantle political apartheid, but was helpless to ameliorate let alone reform the kleptocratic economic system that bred apartheid and which that system insisted remain entrenched in South Africa. There has been very little debate about why the ANC program of socialism never took off once apartheid fell.
|Dec-07-13|| ||twinlark: <jessicafischerqueen: <Doggimus> jinx I was just looking at that list too. It's great eh?|
I'm curious why this is a "guilty pleasure" for you?>
|Dec-07-13|| ||jessicafischerqueen: Will you tell me if I mail you some wine?
At university we used to buy Australian wine because you paid much less for similar quality Aussie wine than for French wine.
I can't quite remember the brand names now. I think one of them was called "The Dingo Ate My Baby" but I can't be certain.
|Dec-08-13|| ||twinlark: <Jess> don't advertise one of Oz's best kept secrets otherwise the price for our plonk will shoot through the roof.|
OK, you have me over a wine barrel. I like lists of all descriptions. I think part of my brain is turning to jelly or becoming American, whichever is the worse.
|Dec-08-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <The public policy process has by and large morphed into a corporate funding model of society which favours entrenched paradigms. I see it as rationalism vs rationality.|
Rationalism being more about the pursuit of short term policy objectives that favour entrenched interests including stock holders, as distinct from rationality in which long term policy objectives favour broader community interests (which are by definition decentralised) that would be supportive of preserving the world's ecosystems for the future profit of humanity rather than the short term profits of corporates and their governmental shills.>
Good point. I believe that the energy crisis could have been solved way back in the 1960s after the first MSR experimental reactor proved that the technology could viably use thorium. The present energy crisis is an artificial artifact of human society's most powerful entrenched institutions.
The founding of the fiat money 'petrodollar' economy in Nixon's time probably made things worse for the incipient Thorium economy, as USA became much more committed to the oil lobby. The Thorium lobby IMO has two main rivals- the water cooled nuclear reactor lobby and the oil lobby.
|Dec-08-13|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Doctor>
I'm re-posting this from your forum, where I forgot that you've been posting your medical journal.
I have in fact been reading your lengthy conversation with <doggimus>, and I did read the recent go-round on the "nature of consciousness. I was hoping you might have some insight on something about my consciousness.
I seem to experience dreams as more vivid and more "real" than reality.
The feeling I get from the dream world is so "real" and exciting that I find myself wanting to stay there, even when the dream is a nightmare.
I try many times to get back into certain dreams I have, but it never happens the way I want. I do return to old dreamscapes at random sometimes. Some of them are dozens of years old too.
Do you think I am going mental?
|Dec-08-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <jessicafischerqueen: I seem to experience dreams as more vivid and more "real" than reality.> You may be having lucid dreams, a dream that you are aware you are dreaming, and thus feels more real to you. A few people have this ability. |
<Do you think I am going mental?> No. I have read that in some socially acceptable Buddhist cultures there are forms of 'dream yoga' wherein the master tries to teach the student lucid dreaming.
I seem to have the ability myself. Once I had this recurrent childhood nightmare of a monster chasing after me. I decided that next time it appeared, I would decide within the dream that it's just a dream. I taught myself to be aware that it is a dream. Next time the monster appeared, I just willed and erased it from the dream since I was now aware that it's just a dream and that I can control certain aspects of it. The poor dream monster apparently got tired of being deleted all the time from my dreams that it has stopped appearing at all.
Normally I do not dream in color and I have read in an article that visual dreams are always in black and white. One night, I decided to see for myself. Before sleeping, I told myself to dream in color. I immediately did so. I was standing by a dry river bank composed of brightly colored layered sedimentary deposits. I was surprised even within the dream because the article I had read claimed that all dreams are in black and white. I perfectly knew I was dreaming a rebuttal against that article, in a lucid dream.
I never forget that lucid dreams are dreams, and there is a reality after them. It might interest you that for me as a writer, lucid dreams are very useful. If my NGO is requiring me to write an article for the sake of our cause that they want printed in one of our internet sites, or in a local newspaper, or in a school publication, and I can't think of how to write the article, I sleep over it, willing myself to dream about it. In such cases the dream is not in audio-visual form, but it occurs to me as ideas. When I wake up, I have the whole article in my mind. I write it down quickly before I forget it, and edit grammatical errors later.
Using this technique, I have been able to write at least four books in the past in record time. I just keep on writing everyday what is given me in the dream.
As an English teacher, perhaps you also make use of this lucid dream technique to write stuff?
<I was hoping you might have some insight on something about my consciousness>
I do not know what to make even of my own consciousness. The more I think of the phenomenon of consciousness, the more I feel I know nothing about it. That's really weird because in my job, the first thing I try to observe is the degree that a patient is conscious. But it's like a recipe; patient is unconscious, then there must be a lesion in her Ascending Reticular Activating System, from the upper pons to the diencephalon. It's useful to localize brain lesions and pathologies. However as for the nature of consciousnesses itself, I know next to nothing.
Going back to <some insight on something about my consciousness>, I think you are doing perfectly fine. In fact you may be one of the fortunate few who have the ability of lucid dreaming.
|Dec-08-13|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Good Doctor>
Thanks for such a detailed and insightful response.
I especially like how you implied that notions such as "going mental" have a lot to do with cultural practices, not just to do with the individual brain organism. The brain is never outside of cultural contexts.
I have dreamed lucidly, but on very rare occasions.
I have always dreamed in color.
I can report that when I do return to previous dreamscapes, sometimes from decades earlier, the feeling of recognition is often overwhelming, and I'd categorize these as religious experiences.
I want to be there; I want to stay there. I wish I could live out my days inside of shifting dreams.
Looks like I picked a bad decade to stop dropping acid.
That's a joke from the movie "Airplane."
In fact, during my "psychedelic drug days" I never remembered any dreams. Marijuana in particular would ensure I would never remember any dreams at all.
|Dec-08-13|| ||dakgootje: I surely have never seen that movie.
In other news I'll read up on all that intelligent stuff written earlier - when I've got a bit of time.
Which may, with any luck, be Tuesday! :)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 202 OF 202 ·
from the Chessgames Store