https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/beat-the-speed-of-light/

 

Hello again,

Just a quickie to think about.

Experiment #1
We take two identical clocks, like wall clocks or watches, and set them to the exact same time, hours, minutes, seconds, tenths, hundredths,milliseconds, so maybe they are both set as:
02:23:51.633
Now we take one of them off on a road trip from New York to Los Angeles, which takes about 6 hours by common air travel or several days by bus or train or car. Since that takes time, by the time the guy with the clock in LA reaches there both clocks were running for a minimum of 6 hours and one of them traveled a distance of 3000 miles.
Ok, so the guy in Los Angeles calls up the guy in New York, and says his clock reads 08:23:51.633 and the guy in New York said at the exact time the guy in LA told him his time (and he told him a time that was very slightly in the future so the guy in NY would read his time at the same time as the guy in LA) was exactly 08:23:51.635 and so those were the two times read at the same instant.
So we see the clock in NY read 2 millisecond ahead, or if you will, the clock in LA read 1 millisecond behind and the clock in NY read 1 millisecond ahead. The point being they read different times in the two different cities because the clocks were not entangled in the sense that entanglement in this case meant they would have been in sync the whole time of the travel of the now in LA clock.
Ok so Experiment #1 is done. Clocks not entangled can read different times.

Experiment #2
We ship the clock in LA back to NY, then entangle the two clocks, and set them to read exactly the same time again.
Now we again take one off to LA via standard air travel.
When the guy in LA calls the guy in NY, he says his time is 18:42:09.834 and lo and behold, the guy in NY says his clock reads 18:42:09.834 as well.
They wait several days, then check again. Again the two clocks read the same exactly.
The main point being that when the clocks are entangled in such a way that their time is sync'd, they keep the same exact time.

Now what happened here. The clocks that were not entangled acted just like regular clocks that do not keep exactly the same time, while the two entangled clocks kept the same time exactly. The question is, how did the two entangled clocks keep the same exact time over that vast distance.
Can we really say that when they were entangled they shared the same wave function and so that kept them sync'd in time? Or maybe we should say that "it just happens that way and it's a theory that it just doesnt matter how far apart they are, they are known to keep the same time".
So you see neither of them is an adequate explanation. For one, we dont have things that act together in perfect sync when they are 3000 miles apart unless they can communicate with each other, and during the travel, they would still have to be in communication with each other.

The point is, we cant just say that it just happens because that is not really an explanation. I realize however that we do have to accept that for now simply because we have no other real explanation because this was not something that is of common experience up until it was discovered, and i also realize that when we dont have good explanations for something we just have to accept that it happens and be satisfied, for the moment.
So what we really need is a GOOD explanation of what is going on with entanglement. I guess that's why there is still ongoing research in that area, and that means we really cant be sure of how it works, YET.
"Correlation" is just a cop out. It's the same thing as saying that "it just happens that way". Even if we never see FTL travel of anything including sub atomic particles, it's still not good enough.
So what i am saying is that i just cant see any way for two of anything to stay "sync'd" when they are far apart without some form of communication and theory alone cant cut it here because that just does not really explain what is happening the way we normally think of the way that things happen.
Could it be that at that level reality switches gears so we dont really have a reality the way we normally think of what reality is? What makes up our reality is usually a large conglomeration of particles acting together, not just one or two particles. So our meager viewpoint is always an average of what is really happening behind the scenes and we never had to deal with the actual individual particles in such a manner before. It could be that we may never know exactly what is happening because individual particles do not really make up our reality in most cases. Until now we always judged things based on large groups of particles acting as a whole. An emergence of sorts so we end up with an emergent experience which is not possible with a single particle. Could it be that our brains are made up of the same particles that we are trying to understand and so that's like the brick trying to understand another brick.

Want to think about something that is actually faster than light, and demonstrate it?
The trick is to take advantage of the speed of light qualifier, "in a vacuum", that nothing can go faster than light 'in a vacuum'. However, in another type of medium, some particles can go faster than light. That's because light slows down in some mediums while some particles can react with some mediums to create a sort of path through the medium. One ramification is that if there was a planet with an atmosphere of one of those kinds of mediums and humans could still live on it, we could see FTL communication on a regular basis because any light we used on that planet near the surface would go slower than some particles and there may be a communication application that can take advantage of that.

Another interesting way to beat it is to create more than one communication channel.
If you can send data down a cable one block away at a rate of 1Mb/s then with 300 million channels you can send data at a rate of 300 trillion bits per second, which would be faster than sending data by use of light alone. Of course you would also have to have a parallel interface that could handle that much data at once (ha ha). If you send it at 1Gb/s however, then you only need 300000 channels but that would still be a lot of data to handle at once. It would be hard to imagine an application that can be broken down into 300000 parts so each part could be sent and processed at the receiving end with 300000 cpu's. I guess there could be some though.

 

How does one entangle two clocks?

Particles are entangled when they are created out the same elementary process. This does not apply to clocks,

 

Hello again,


Just a quickie to think about.


Experiment #1

We take two identical clocks, like wall clocks or watches, and set them to the exact same time, hours, minutes, seconds, tenths, hundredths,milliseconds, so maybe they are both set as:

02:23:51.633

Now we take one of them off on a road trip from New York to Los Angeles, which takes about 6 hours by common air travel or several days by bus or train or car. Since that takes time, by the time the guy with the clock in LA reaches there both clocks were running for a minimum of 6 hours and one of them traveled a distance of 3000 miles.

Ok, so the guy in Los Angeles calls up the guy in New York, and says his clock reads 08:23:51.633 and the guy in New York said at the exact time the guy in LA told him his time (and he told him a time that was very slightly in the future so the guy in NY would read his time at the same time as the guy in LA) was exactly 08:23:51.635 and so those were the two times read at the same instant.

So we see the clock in NY read 2 millisecond ahead, or if you will, the clock in LA read 1 millisecond behind and the clock in NY read 1 millisecond ahead. The point being they read different times in the two different cities because the clocks were not entangled in the sense that entanglement in this case meant they would have been in sync the whole time of the travel of the now in LA clock.

Ok so Experiment #1 is done. Clocks not entangled can read different times.


Experiment #2

We ship the clock in LA back to NY, then entangle the two clocks, and set them to read exactly the same time again.

Now we again take one off to LA via standard air travel.

When the guy in LA calls the guy in NY, he says his time is 18:42:09.834 and lo and behold, the guy in NY says his clock reads 18:42:09.834 as well.

They wait several days, then check again. Again the two clocks read the same exactly.

The main point being that when the clocks are entangled in such a way that their time is sync'd, they keep the same exact time.


Now what happened here. The clocks that were not entangled acted just like regular clocks that do not keep exactly the same time, while the two entangled clocks kept the same time exactly. The question is, how did the two entangled clocks keep the same exact time over that vast distance.

Can we really say that when they were entangled they shared the same wave function and so that kept them sync'd in time? Or maybe we should say that "it just happens that way and it's a theory that it just doesnt matter how far apart they are, they are known to keep the same time".

So you see neither of them is an adequate explanation. For one, we dont have things that act together in perfect sync when they are 3000 miles apart unless they can communicate with each other, and during the travel, they would still have to be in communication with each other.


The point is, we cant just say that it just happens because that is not really an explanation. I realize however that we do have to accept that for now simply because we have no other real explanation because this was not something that is of common experience up until it was discovered, and i also realize that when we dont have good explanations for something we just have to accept that it happens and be satisfied, for the moment.

So what we really need is a GOOD explanation of what is going on with entanglement. I guess that's why there is still ongoing research in that area, and that means we really cant be sure of how it works, YET.

"Correlation" is just a cop out. It's the same thing as saying that "it just happens that way". Even if we never see FTL travel of anything including sub atomic particles, it's still not good enough.

So what i am saying is that i just cant see any way for two of anything to stay "sync'd" when they are far apart without some form of communication and theory alone cant cut it here because that just does not really explain what is happening the way we normally think of the way that things happen.

Could it be that at that level reality switches gears so we dont really have a reality the way we normally think of what reality is? What makes up our reality is usually a large conglomeration of particles acting together, not just one or two particles. So our meager viewpoint is always an average of what is really happening behind the scenes and we never had to deal with the actual individual particles in such a manner before. It could be that we may never know exactly what is happening because individual particles do not really make up our reality in most cases. Until now we always judged things based on large groups of particles acting as a whole. An emergence of sorts so we end up with an emergent experience which is not possible with a single particle. Could it be that our brains are made up of the same particles that we are trying to understand and so that's like the brick trying to understand another brick.

Actually it would have no effect whatsoever on the rate of the clocks. Relative acceleration creates time-dilation effects. The clock that gets accelerated will tick at a slower rate than the one that is effectively unaccelerated. At driving speeds the difference will be virtually immeasurable. At the acceleration required to take a satellite into orbit to a speed of around 10 km/s however it would be quite measurable. Which is why GPS satellites have to use Einstein's equations to correct for relativistic effects.

Okay so what is entanglement? Imagine you were to eject two electrons within a closed system. If they collide at just the right angle and velocities, their spins will counter-align in such a way that one will be "up" and the other "down". Now if you were to measure at some point along the way you always find this to be the case. Outside a lab the situation changes rather drastically. The universe is abound with energetic particles capable of "re-entangling" an electron in free space. And especially outside of Earth's protective atmosphere.

So why does entanglement happen in the first place? Well in the complex plane, due to the fact that i^2 + 1^2 = 0, the origin is at (1, 1) instead of (0, 0) as is the case with Cartesian coordinates. So we are switching from translations to affine rotations which are guaranteed to obey skew symmetry. And thus electron spin. Particles which interact with eachother under "normal" conditions on the other hand will not exhibit such an alignment of spins. It takes energy but also the precision found in a well-designed experimental setup.

Want to think about something that is actually faster than light, and demonstrate it?

The trick is to take advantage of the speed of light qualifier, "in a vacuum", that nothing can go faster than light 'in a vacuum'. However, in another type of medium, some particles can go faster than light. That's because light slows down in some mediums while some particles can react with some mediums to create a sort of path through the medium. One ramification is that if there was a planet with an atmosphere of one of those kinds of mediums and humans could still live on it, we could see FTL communication on a regular basis because any light we used on that planet near the surface would go slower than some particles and there may be a communication application that can take advantage of that.

You cannot violate the speed of causality. Even if there was some sort of instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" going on there would be absolutely no way to transmit information at that speed. And that has already been proven by the way. Entanglement simply cannot be used to create some sort of magical communication channel.

 

Actually it would have no effect whatsoever on the rate of the clocks. Relative acceleration creates time-dilation effects. The clock that gets accelerated will tick at a slower rate than the one that is effectively unaccelerated. At driving speeds the difference will be virtually immeasurable. At the acceleration required to take a satellite into orbit to a speed of around 10 km/s however it would be quite measurable. Which is why GPS satellites have to use Einstein's equations to correct for relativistic effects.

Okay so what is entanglement? Imagine you were to eject two electrons within a closed system. If they collide at just the right angle and velocities, their spins will counter-align in such a way that one will be "up" and the other "down". Now if you were to measure at some point along the way you always find this to be the case. Outside a lab the situation changes rather drastically. The universe is abound with energetic particles capable of "re-entangling" an electron in free space. And especially outside of Earth's protective atmosphere.

So why does entanglement happen in the first place? Well in the complex plane, due to the fact that i^2 + 1^2 = 0, the origin is at (1, 1) instead of (0, 0) as is the case with Cartesian coordinates. So we are switching from translations to affine rotations which are guaranteed to obey skew symmetry. And thus electron spin. Particles which interact with eachother under "normal" conditions on the other hand will not exhibit such an alignment of spins. It takes energy but also the precision found in a well-designed experimental setup.




You cannot violate the speed of causality. Even if there was some sort of instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" going on there would be absolutely no way to transmit information at that speed. And that has already been proven by the way. Entanglement simply cannot be used to create some sort of magical communication channel.

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

I must say that my post was not meant to rehash the magical communication, it's been stated over and over again dont see why you feel the need to state it again. It was also not meant to delve into the exact working of clocks. The clocks are assumed to be void of any other influence except for some minor tick difference maybe due to a spring or something.

What it was meant to do was to compare something we all know quite well and pose the question of what could keep the two 'entangled' clocks ticking at the same time, assuming it was even possible, which it's not that i know of. It's a thought experiment and with many of these we dont need to be exact with the experiment setup it should be obvious that it was a simple comparison.
So the idea is to think about what could possibly keep the clocks ticking at exactly the same rate, and dont say "entangled photons" ha ha. If they kept time based on entangled particles they would keep perfect time but that's not the idea the idea is to think of the clocks as particles and think about what would possibly keep them sync'd up. That's meant to mirror the two entangled photons and try to figure out how they can stay sync'd unless we consider that they are truly random all the time up until the point where one is observed, but i dont think that's the case.
Now for now, i will not say that communication faster than light is what is happening, but something is happening and that's the question ... what is it that keeps them sync'd, or what causes them to become sync'd at the moment of observation of only one of them.

 

How does one entangle two clocks?

Particles are entangled when they are created out the same elementary process. This does not apply to clocks,

Hi,

It does not have too this is a thought experiment that asks the hypothetical question of how something we all know intimately could possibly hold the sync as time moves on. It's impossible, unless there is some mechanism at work. If this did actually happen, we would investigate and find out what that mechanism is and it would not be a statement like, "well it just happens". The idea then is to think again about the two entangled particles and ask the same question with the specialized clocks in mind.

If we didnt have to move the clocks too far, we could 'entangle' them with a cable that turns both clock's gears at the same rate, and therefore they would stay perfectly sync'd. When we investigate, we would find the cable and that would explain it. There is nothing we know of that keeps the entangled particles in sync but yet they are, so it's time for more thought.

 

Okay, then I will get to the flawed logic in the experiment itself. Special relativity does not allow you to say two events that are separated in space are simultaneous. Different observers will say event A occurred first, event B occurred first, or they occur at the same time.

Sabine’s latest video hapoens to cover just that.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/?m=1

 

Okay, then I will get to the flawed logic in the experiment itself. Special relativity does not allow you to say two events that are separated in space are simultaneous. Different observers will say event A occurred first, event B occurred first, or they occur at the same time.

Sabine’s latest video hapoens to cover just that.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/?m=1

Hello again,

If you understood the premises you would not find any flaw. It's a very simple concept so it cant have any flaw unless you wanted to generate one.
This is because simple things are not so precise that they are spelled out in great detail. If you understand the premises you know that you would not have to consider any deeper precision. Also, when there really is a flaw you may have to adjust the thought experiment but if you understood the premises you would know how to do that without asking anybody including me. In other words, if you can find a flaw then modify the experiment so that the flaw goes away, if you know how to do that, that is.
Compare an apple to an orange. "Oh my god they are several inches away from each other so we cant do that" (ha ha).

 

Here we go again, AD NAUSEAM.

People explain using scientifically specific reasoning why it won't work but "they" are the problem for easily showing the flaws, It's "their" problem unscientific theories are so easily and quickly discarded.

 

If you understand the premises you know that you would not have to consider any deeper precision.

One of your premises is that you can identify two events separated by 3000 miles as simultaneous. Special relativity says you cannot. I posted a video that explains why, and you still ignored it and told me I was the one who had misconceptions. Sorry, but I will take Einstein’s assertions over MrAl’s any day.

 

One of your premises is that you can identify two events separated by 3000 miles as simultaneous. Special relativity says you cannot. I posted a video that explains why, and you still ignored it and told me I was the one who had misconceptions. Sorry, but I will take Einstein’s assertions over MrAl’s any day.

Hello again,

Ha ha, then i guess i will do the same. But if you like, forget about the two clocks they are not that important and it seems you cant understand that. It's not even about the clocks it's about the particles. So go back to the particles and forget the clocks if that makes you happy.

But the bottom line is that although i am sure we both agree about many things for today, we will never be on the same page entirely. So there is really no point in discussing this further with you right now i think you can understand that. Of course you can always feel free to explain your own position on these matters that's a nice thing about forums. You just have to remember that there will be people who agree with you and those that disagree, and that's the way it should be.

 

Hello again,

Ha ha, then i guess i will do the same. But if you like, forget about the two clocks they are not that important and it seems you cant understand that. It's not even about the clocks it's about the particles. So go back to the particles and forget the clocks if that makes you happy.

But the bottom line is that although i am sure we both agree about many things for today, we will never be on the same page entirely. So there is really no point in discussing this further with you right now i think you can understand that. Of course you can always feel free to explain your own position on these matters that's a nice thing about forums. You just have to remember that there will be people who agree with you and those that disagree, and that's the way it should be.

I am not “explaining my own opinion”, I am stating the current scientific consensus as I understand it.

 

I am not “explaining my own opinion”, I am stating the current scientific consensus as I understand it.

It's always personal if you disagree with him.

 

I am not “explaining my own opinion”, I am stating the current scientific consensus as I understand it.

Hi,

Yes and i agree with that for the most part.
If you would rather talk about this in a private conversation we can do that.

 

The one thing I got from relativity is there is no universal now. All times are relative to their individual locations and flow at their own rates given many factors. We make clocks that can are accurate to fentoseconds in over a billion years. These kind of clocks are perfect for showing relative time drift in their journey through space-time. And have been used to prove relativity more often than not. We can sync these clocks in two locations with a great deal of accuracy and it will be used to establish the speed of quantum entanglement. I am waiting for the right experiment to be done to establish this. In case you haven't noticed I bowed myself out of this thread along time ago.

 

The one thing I got from relativity is there is no universal now. All times are relative to their individual locations and flow at their own rates given many factors. We make clocks that can are accurate to fentoseconds in over a billion years. These kind of clocks are perfect for showing relative time drift in their journey through space-time. And have been used to prove relativity more often than not. We can sync these clocks in two locations with a great deal of accuracy and it will be used to establish the speed of quantum entanglement. I am waiting for the right experiment to be done to establish this. In case you haven't noticed I bowed myself out of this thread along time ago.

The speed of quantum entanglement is meaningless to this discussion and to the usage of quantum entanglement for useful things like encryption. The decades old experiments that show speeds of 10,000 times FTL is THE proof that actual information is NOT being transferred across spacetime during the measurement process. There is not a "thing" that is traveling through space faster than light, only the particle(s) carrying entanglement travel.

This is not my personal opinion, this is scientific fact tested again and again.
Quantum entanglement does not make communication possible. Neither faster, nor slower than light.

 

The one thing I got from relativity is there is no universal now. All times are relative to their individual locations and flow at their own rates given many factors. We make clocks that can are accurate to fentoseconds in over a billion years. These kind of clocks are perfect for showing relative time drift in their journey through space-time. And have been used to prove relativity more often than not. We can sync these clocks in two locations with a great deal of accuracy and it will be used to establish the speed of quantum entanglement. I am waiting for the right experiment to be done to establish this. In case you haven't noticed I bowed myself out of this thread along time ago.

Well if there ever were such thing as a super-mega-high-density fuel (spoiler: there isn't and probably never will be) you could send one clock several billion years into the future. That would be a significant "drift" wouldn't you say?

 

Well if there ever were such thing as a super-mega-high-density fuel (spoiler: there isn't and probably never will be) you could send one clock several billion years into the future. That would be a significant "drift" wouldn't you say?

Hi,

The problem with a discussion like this is that there are a lot of assumptions that have to be assessed. We would have to do a formal statement list to be able to really hash this out.
One way to do this would be to create such a list or lists and present them to an automated reasoning program. If we start to get silly results we know we left something out.

There is a much simpler view though and that is that there are two schools of thought in this thread.
#1. Current science is completely settled in that some things can never change given a trillion years or more.
#2. Current science is not completely settled in that some things no matter how absurd sounding as they are now, can eventually change.

#1 is the block head viewpoint because they refuse to accept anything they cant prove RIGHT NOW.
#2 is the more liberal view in that there could be untold improvements in the understanding of our universe or even other universes.

There is a more definitive explanation for these two views though and that is that it depends on your interpretation of quantum physics. I wont hold anybody to that though because i am a #2 person.

Another way of looking at it is that there is NO WAY in 'heck' that i can be wrong, or anyone else that is a #2 person because if something changes drastically i am certainly not wrong, but if nothing else ever changes for all eternity i am also not wrong. So i cant lose
#1 people can lose if anything changes. Sorry guys

So make your choice carefully

 

There is ZERO, ZERO, ZERO evidence on there being two sides of a discussion here. To say otherwise is a gross miscarriage of science, the scientific method and the scientific process.

 

Hi,

The problem with a discussion like this is that there are a lot of assumptions that have to be assessed. We would have to do a formal statement list to be able to really hash this out.
One way to do this would be to create such a list or lists and present them to an automated reasoning program. If we start to get silly results we know we left something out.

There is a much simpler view though and that is that there are two schools of thought in this thread.
#1. Current science is completely settled in that some things can never change given a trillion years or more.
#2. Current science is not completely settled in that some things no matter how absurd sounding as they are now, can eventually change.

#1 is the block head viewpoint because they refuse to accept anything they cant prove RIGHT NOW.
#2 is the more liberal view in that there could be untold improvements in the understanding of our universe or even other universes.

There is a more definitive explanation for these two views though and that is that it depends on your interpretation of quantum physics. I wont hold anybody to that though because i am a #2 person.

Another way of looking at it is that there is NO WAY in 'heck' that i can be wrong, or anyone else that is a #2 person because if something changes drastically i am certainly not wrong, but if nothing else ever changes for all eternity i am also not wrong. So i cant lose
#1 people can lose if anything changes. Sorry guys

So make your choice carefully

Wow, a false dichotomy and straw man in a single post. Are there other logical fallacies that you would like to demonstrate your mastery of?