Instantaneous long-distance travel of LDS gods

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#T ... _wormholes

I'm just helping keep the dream alive...

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

While in the MTC I raised my hand in a meeting one time, during a discussion about the Holy Ghost, and posited that maybe the Holy Ghost can be in our hearts simultaneously through time-slicing, in the say manner that a single-threaded operating system can appear to run multiple programs simultaneously by running each application during short slices of time and cycle through them rapidly, giving the illusion of simultanaity.

I don't think anyone else understood what I meant, and the conversation moved on.

I think Vonnegut would've approved, and written a story about it, you know... If he weren't kaput.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_SteelHead]

Look you just emit an inverted tachyon beam through the main deflector generator......

[_RockSlider]

Years back I saw the following bumper sticker on a car:
300,000 meters per second, it's not just a good idea, it’s the law!

[Guest]

As to superluminal communication by quantum entanglement (again for Tobin):

The "information" about the spin state of a particle such as an electron or a photon that is "communicated" between one particle and its entangled partner is "quantum information" not "classical information" (or in fact useful information). It does not matter whether such particles have mass or not. Photons (no mass) and electrons (small mass) can both be created in pairs and thus be entangled.

It is possible to entangle two particles in terms of their relative spin states, and determine that the states are later complementary in every case no matter which particle spin state is first observed. However, it is not possible (theoretically or practically) to use this quantum entanglement to transfer classical or useful information at speeds faster than light.

One way to appreciate this is to realize that no information is transferred until the two detectors in the communication "system" compare the detected spin states of the entangled particle in order to show (or determine) that they were complimentary. This detector-to-detector communication cannot occur at superluminal speed. As a practical consequence, no useful information can be transferred at superluminal speeds.

As an example, think about how one might send a simple SOS (... ___ ...) or spin (up, up ,up down, down down, up ,up, up) message in Morse Code at FTL speeds via a quantum entanglement communicator. I will leave to the believers to explain how this could be done, given the constraints described above. (Good Luck, Tobin.)

Causality is a fundamental concept in Newtonian and Relativistic Physics. Those who believe that causality must also be maintained in quantum physics accept the postulate that entanglement cannot be used to transfer information at FTL speeds, because this leads to paradoxes that ultimately violate causality.

Nonetheless there are those who do not care for "peaceful co-existence" between relativity and quantum mechanics and (as scientists should) continue to question this speed limit. Although some of these attempts are fun (and even instructive) to think about, so far they have been unsuccessful.

Yes, I've seen this explanation before. You'll note the underlined and bolded statement. It is pure assertion. There is NO law of physics that precludes this. That is why DrW is full of gas. Actually, I wasn't the first one to note this assertion (many people with degrees and who are professionals in the field have made similar remarks). Those who state that quantum entanglement can not be used as a means of communication make a number of baseless assertions along these lines and do so repeatedly. It either boils down to assertions that it is impossible, even though the states are maintained over any distance OR they state casaulity (ie time travel is impossible) precludes this, even though a signal sent in one time frame could be received potentially in any (or multiple) time frames. It is all just BS and handwaving and that is why research still continues on the potential of this means of communication.

The fact of the matter is space-time and quantum mechanics does not preclude any of this. In fact, physics equations work perfectly well if you move time forward or backwards. And it has often been pointed out that time is relative and can be effected by distance, speed, and direction (I'm addressing the causality/time travel criticism). For example, if an alien were 10 billion light years away from us. If they moved slowly towards or away from us, their future would coincide with our distant past or (and this is the hard part to grasp for some people) our distant future. Another way to think about it is to compares space-time to a piece of paper and imagine we are two-dimensional beings trapped on that piece of paper. If you draw two dots on opposite sides of the paper and try to move from one to the other, it will take a certain amount of time to traverse the distance. However, if you bend the paper over so each dot is touching each other, travel is instantaneous. The same can be said if you stick a pencil through the paper. It might appear that the same object appears in multiple places as once, even though we know that in reality it does not. If you extrapolate these examples, you can see that travel (or sending information) should not only be possible instanteously in 2 dimensional world, but ours as well. And that casaulity is not a valid criticism, since the principles at play is the shape of space-time (in this case at the quantum level).

The essential question the critics fail to address again and again is why are these things possible in a 2 dimensional world, but not possible our world simply because we live in another dimension?

Tobin,

With your underlining in my post above, you have just made the profound observation that superluminal communication requires the ability to communicate at FTL speeds. Well done.

What are you proposing for your superluminal mechanism?

Are you saying that Einstein was wrong and that a particle with mass can exceed the speed of light?

Are you saying that massless particles can exceed the speed of light?

Are you saying that you believe in Tachyons (as SteelHead suggests)?

Are you talking about the transfer of information over extremely small distances (in the micron range)?

Are you saying that a quantum entanglement superluminal device can be designed?

What?

Why not show us what you'e got and simply describe how it is possible to send and receive a simple SOS (... --- ...) message with a FTL quantum communicator (you can use your own design).

Remember that the particle pairs you will be using are generated (released) with random spins, so Detector A will not know the spin of the particle headed its way until it is actually measured in the detector.

Have at it, baby.

[_DrW]

Years back I saw the following bumper sticker on a car:
300,000 meters per second, it's not just a good idea, it’s the law!

Exactly.

Of course, in Kolob Cosmology (perhaps the premier make-it-up-as- you-go-along cosmology), there is all kinds of room for magic, and if that doesn't work --> Just Believe.

[_lulu]

Yes, I've seen this explanation before. You'll note the underlined and bolded statement. It is pure assertion. There is NO law of physics that precludes this. That is why DrW is full of gas.

Please state the laws of physics that permit it.

Please post the underlying supporting equations.

Please state in detail the mechanism.

Please state the confirming experimental data.

Otherwise your statement "is pure assertion."

But I won't call you a gasbag, because that would be rude.

[_Tobin]

With your underlining in my post above, you have just made the profound observation that superluminal communication requires the ability to communicate at FTL speeds. Well done.

No, I was pointing out that is your assertion has no bearing on space-time or quantum dynamics. You have posted a bunch of non-sense questions below to which you and I both know has zero relevance to the observations I made. The question I want you to answer, are there or are there not parts of the galaxy expanding away from us at FASTER than the speed of light (ie do you believe in the big bang)? The idiocy of your position is you are repeatedly trying to limit space-time and the shape of space-time at the quantum level to the speed of light. What is stunning is you make this same mistake over and over. And at the same time, you have refused to address or acknowledge the things I have pointed out to you on a very fundamental level. This is the problem with your understanding of the universe and it is stuck back in the 1930's. You aren't dealing with the picture of cosmology, the big bang, and quantum mechanics as we understand it today.

[_ludwigm]

Years back I saw the following bumper sticker on a car:
300,000 meters per second, it's not just a good idea, it’s the law!

1.80 terafurlongs per fortnight (or 1.80 furlongs per pico-fortnight)

One nanocentury is about pi seconds.

Or - as I always used to say to my students - the standard lecture period is one microcentury.

[_DrW]

With your underlining in my post above, you have just made the profound observation that superluminal communication requires the ability to communicate at FTL speeds. Well done.

No, I was pointing out that is your assertion has no bearing on space-time or quantum dynamics. You have posted a bunch of non-sense questions below to which you and I both know has zero relevance to the observations I made. The question I want you to answer, are there or are there not parts of the galaxy expanding away from us at FASTER than the speed of light (ie do you believe in the big bang)? The idiocy of your position is you are repeatedly trying to limit space-time and the shape of space-time at the quantum level to the speed of light. What is stunning is you make this same mistake over and over. And at the same time, you have refused to address or acknowledge the things I have pointed out to you on a very fundamental level. This is the problem with your understanding of the universe and it is stuck back in the 1930's. You aren't dealing with the picture of cosmology, the big bang, and quantum mechanics as we understand it today.

Tobin,

Sorry, my friend, but between you and me, the one who is demonstrating an embarrassing lack of understanding when it comes to basic physics is not me.

In the last couple of days lulu and I (and probably others) have have pointed out to you the irrelevance of the expansion of space-time at large distances with regard to your assertion that FTL travel / communication is possible (or is indeed going on as we speak).

If you don't yet understand that the aggregated expansion of space-time over large distances does not equate to, allow, or have anything to do with, FTL communication or travel (in terms of the speed of light as propagated / measured within space time), then I cannot help you.

Before you come back here and embarrass yourself further, try Googling the term "Apparent FTL". When you do, please note that this is distinct from FTL.