Faster than c? • page 2/6 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

Well not really. You can't use Quantum entanglement to actually transmit information (this is the root of the so-called EPR paradox I think).

No...quantum entanglement is another way to say that the universe MUST at all times be in a stable energy state. If you alter the spin on a quark, another quark somewhere must alter it's spin to balance the energy distribution....and they do. Instantly. Regardless of distance.
I told you it would make your head hurt... xd

@FC-in-the-UK said in #10: > Well not really. You can't use Quantum entanglement to actually transmit information (this is the root of the so-called EPR paradox I think). No...quantum entanglement is another way to say that the universe MUST at all times be in a stable energy state. If you alter the spin on a quark, another quark somewhere must alter it's spin to balance the energy distribution....and they do. Instantly. Regardless of distance. I told you it would make your head hurt... xd

obladie

#12

Quantum entanglement IS information transfer.... instantly.

obladie

#13

Once again the copy/paste is used to imply knowledge.

Mantram_PateL

#14

@Akbar2thegreat which objects are faster than light?
If you're referring to the Universe expanding then it does expand faster but, ‘‘you might be wondering doesn't that break the General Theory of Relativity? According to that, nothing can travel faster than light in space, but that doesn't stop space itself’’

Taken from: https://youtu.be/XBr4GkRnY04. The iPad I'm posting from is my school's, so there are restrictions, I hope it's the correct video.

@absicht_MAUERzuBAUEN

Well, if you point a torch from Earth to an celestial-body 30 light years away, and then if you move you hand a millimetre, then the light will travel from that celestial-body's one end to the other, which will be faster than light. At the end of the day, the main source is light itself.

https://youtu.be/EPsG8td7C5k

(Again, I hope it's the correct video.)

@Akbar2thegreat which objects are faster than light? If you're referring to the Universe expanding then it does expand faster but, ‘‘you might be wondering doesn't that break the General Theory of Relativity? According to that, nothing can travel faster than light in space, but that doesn't stop space itself’’ Taken from: https://youtu.be/XBr4GkRnY04. The iPad I'm posting from is my school's, so there are restrictions, I hope it's the correct video. @absicht_MAUERzuBAUEN Well, if you point a torch from Earth to an celestial-body 30 light years away, and then if you move you hand a millimetre, then the light will travel from that celestial-body's one end to the other, which will be faster than light. At the end of the day, the main source is light itself. https://youtu.be/EPsG8td7C5k (Again, I hope it's the correct video.)

FC-in-the-UK

#15

@obladie yeah I know what quantum entanglement is. What I am saying is you can't use it to build a device that would enable a sender to send a message to a receiver faster than light.

Say you have two entangled electrons A and B located one year-light apart from each other.
Alice can measure the state of electron A and Bob can measure the value of electron B.
Say Alice also wants to toss a coin and send the result to Bob. Well my claim is that the entangled electrons are of no use for her to do that.
When Alice measures the state of electron A, electron B must "instantly" be in the opposite state. However, because Alice can't CHOOSE beforehand what will be the state of electron A, she has no way to use it to send any information regarding the outcome of the coin toss.
To know if it was head or tails, Bob must wait one year.

@obladie yeah I know what quantum entanglement is. What I am saying is you can't use it to build a device that would enable a sender to send a message to a receiver faster than light. Say you have two entangled electrons A and B located one year-light apart from each other. Alice can measure the state of electron A and Bob can measure the value of electron B. Say Alice also wants to toss a coin and send the result to Bob. Well my claim is that the entangled electrons are of no use for her to do that. When Alice measures the state of electron A, electron B must "instantly" be in the opposite state. However, because Alice can't CHOOSE beforehand what will be the state of electron A, she has no way to use it to send any information regarding the outcome of the coin toss. To know if it was head or tails, Bob must wait one year.

obladie

#16

@FC-in-the-UK said in #15:

@obladie yeah I know what quantum entanglement is. What I am saying is you can't use it to build a device that would enable a sender to send a message to a receiver faster than light.

Say you have two entangled electrons A and B located one year-light apart from each other.
Alice can measure the state of electron A and Bob can measure the value of electron B.
Say Alice also wants to toss a coin and send the result to Bob. Well my claim is that the entangled electrons are of no use for her to do that.
When Alice measures the state of electron A, electron B must "instantly" be in the opposite state. However, because Alice can't CHOOSE beforehand what will be the state of electron A, she has no way to use it to send any information regarding the outcome of the coin toss.
To know if it was head or tails, Bob must wait one year.

yes you can...what part of the word instantaneous are you failing to comprehend?

@FC-in-the-UK said in #15: > @obladie yeah I know what quantum entanglement is. What I am saying is you can't use it to build a device that would enable a sender to send a message to a receiver faster than light. > > Say you have two entangled electrons A and B located one year-light apart from each other. > Alice can measure the state of electron A and Bob can measure the value of electron B. > Say Alice also wants to toss a coin and send the result to Bob. Well my claim is that the entangled electrons are of no use for her to do that. > When Alice measures the state of electron A, electron B must "instantly" be in the opposite state. However, because Alice can't CHOOSE beforehand what will be the state of electron A, she has no way to use it to send any information regarding the outcome of the coin toss. > To know if it was head or tails, Bob must wait one year. yes you can...what part of the word instantaneous are you failing to comprehend?

edgy_moron

#17

Lichess is written in Scala and Scala is faster than C because it runs on the Java platform (reputed for its speed)

FC-in-the-UK

#18

@obladie ok then please explain to me how Alice is supposed to send to Bob the result of her coin flipping using a pair of entangled electrons.

KartikeyaSharma0504

#19

For a thing to be faster than light, he should have infinite mass. But, faster than light causes time to stop and the object will be converted into energy. It is also possible that the object will struck in a time loop. As the object will go near the speed of light, the time will be slowed for him. Meaning, if your friend is 20 years old and you are traveling with the speed of 90% of the light's speed, your age will only increase some seconds while your friend's age will increase at the same rate as he was growing.
I hope you understood the concept.

For a thing to be faster than light, he should have infinite mass. But, faster than light causes time to stop and the object will be converted into energy. It is also possible that the object will struck in a time loop. As the object will go near the speed of light, the time will be slowed for him. Meaning, if your friend is 20 years old and you are traveling with the speed of 90% of the light's speed, your age will only increase some seconds while your friend's age will increase at the same rate as he was growing. I hope you understood the concept.

FC-in-the-UK

#20

@KartikeyaSharma0504 said in #19:

For a thing to be faster than light, he should have infinite mass. But, faster than light causes time to stop and the object will be converted into energy. It is also possible that the object will struck in a time loop.
I am sorry but that doesn't make any sense.

@KartikeyaSharma0504 said in #19: > For a thing to be faster than light, he should have infinite mass. But, faster than light causes time to stop and the object will be converted into energy. It is also possible that the object will struck in a time loop. I am sorry but that doesn't make any sense.