So, how does one transmit information faster than Light?

File: 643 KB, 1280x800, QTransmission.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

sage sage Fri May 27 19:42:00 2011 No.3133170 [Reply] [Original]

So, how does one transmit information faster than Light?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 19:44:00 2011 No.3133174 quantum computing

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 19:46:00 2011 No.3133177 >>3133174 Except it is not useful unless you also transmit some classical information along some c-limited route.

>>	sage sage Fri May 27 19:49:00 2011 No.3133186 >>3133177 then how does an algorithm that has predictive power transmit information faster than light?

Anonymous Fri May 27 19:53:00 2011 No.3133194

>>3133186
What? There are no algorithms that transmit quantum data in a useful manner faster than light. It is forbidden by the no cloning theorem. The "quantum teleportation" algorithm uses set of 4 qubits, two of which are in entangled Bell states to set one qubit into a state that can be transformed into the other if we measure [and so destroy the quantum information] the original and one of the Bell states and transfer the classical information along a c-limited route and then applying the proper operation to set the state of the end qubit correctly.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 19:56:00 2011 No.3133201 File: 32 KB, 238x400, Kit+Fisto+-+Kneeling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3133194 Information, not...anything else. Did you read the pic?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:01:00 2011 No.3133207 >>3133201 Only information is transmitted in quantum teleportation.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:01:00 2011 No.3133209 Nothing travels faster than c in quantum physics, NOTHING.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:05:00 2011 No.3133216 >>3133209 Entangled states can transmit information about themselves faster than light. This, however, is not able to be used by us to send useful information faster than the speed of light.

>>	sage Fri May 27 20:08:00 2011 No.3133226 I can transmit information faster than light, but only with a 50% success rate for each bit. It's called guessing.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:10:00 2011 No.3133228 >>3133216 So if gliese computes the earth function f(x) 40 years into the future and transmits that back, isn't that information about the earth's weather being transmitted faster than light?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:10:00 2011 No.3133232 Impossible. You would break causality.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:11:00 2011 No.3133233 >>3133228 No, it is information about a simulation that is 20 years out of date.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:12:00 2011 No.3133235 >>3133228 And if this information this fed into the earth computer, isn't it then accelerating the speed of information retrieval as some arbitrary speed c+n

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:15:00 2011 No.3133242 >>3133233 No, the information takes 20ly to travel, Giese simulates it to 20 years + 2 days into the future, which means the information earth transmitted reached it faster than light.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:18:00 2011 No.3133250 >>3133216 No they don't, nothing is transmitted between entangled pairs of particles when one is measured. Measurements are local.

Anonymous Fri May 27 20:20:00 2011 No.3133253

>>3133242
What? If the information is simulated, it is not transmitted from Earth, it is just similar information if the simulation is perfect. You are not transmitting anything, you are producing new [but not necessarily unique] information. If I say 2+2=4 and at the exact same time someone on the other side of the world does the same thing, no information was sent at the speed of light, we just "created" the same information at the same time.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:20:00 2011 No.3133255 File: 62 KB, 850x850, 1281466744008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Information doesn't travel faster than light. Just doesn't happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:21:00 2011 No.3133262 >>3133250 Violation of the Bell inequalities has already established that quantum mechanics is not a local theorem and that information is exchanged between entangled particles at faster than the speed of light.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:22:00 2011 No.3133265 >>3133253 right, but if useful information can be mathematically described about a system, then you can transmit that information faster than light.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:24:00 2011 No.3133271 >>3133170 you can't. There are known know methods so far.

Anonymous Fri May 27 20:27:00 2011 No.3133279

>>3133265
No, you can't. The simulation cannot transmit information to Earth faster than the speed of light. If the simulation is perfect and is somehow 2 days into the future [a perfect simulation should take equal time to produce the same results as the real system] of when it is received, there is still no information being sent faster than the speed of light. All that is happening is that the system will generate the same information in two days. Still nothing transmitted faster than light.

Anonymous Fri May 27 20:27:00 2011 No.3133281

>>3133271
The picture is a known method. A system is described by f(x) and f(x) is transmitted along with the required variables. f(x) is limited by processing power, which means the receiver can extrapolate f(x) to a point where the information from earth had not yet been observed.

Furthermore, if the receiver can double the speed of calculation, it could return information to earth about it's weather way in advance of the computer simulating f(x)

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:30:00 2011 No.3133288 Gravity travels faster than light, niggers.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:31:00 2011 No.3133291 >>3133288 No, it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:32:00 2011 No.3133293 >>3133281 well sure..if you want to be talking about poorly predicted weather, but if you want to have a conversation on how the economy is doing or ask how your family is doing, then you better be waiting a long time for a reply.

Anonymous Fri May 27 20:35:00 2011 No.3133301

>>3133293
Right, but if you wanted to talk to gliese, you would upload your f(x) transhuman function and when it was received, it could be faithfully replicated, and the information could be returned in the form of another replication of your family.

Sure the idea of a function doing that precisely is silly, but as far as the experience goes, the same information would be transmitted faster than light.

Anonymous Fri May 27 20:39:00 2011 No.3133315

>>3133262
I guess we are arguing interpretations here, I suppose you are one of those de Broglie-Bohm types? I'm not a fan, it seems hugely unnatural to think like that to me. I like relational interpretations. Entangled particles are just correlated in a way we can't describe with objective classical properties. No communication at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:41:00 2011 No.3133329 >>3133288 Lol did Newton tell you that? lrn2generalrelativity

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:43:00 2011 No.3133339 >>3133315 OP's pic doesn't require any quantum mechanics, assuming classical physics could faithfully speedup any complex algorithm.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:47:00 2011 No.3133358 >>3133170 Ok, so is everyone agreed that information is being transmitted faster than light and it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:48:00 2011 No.3133361 >>3133329 >>3133291 Light travels faster than light (would normally travel) when it goes past the event horizon of a black hole.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:49:00 2011 No.3133366 >>3133358 No information is being transmitted, only coincidence.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:49:00 2011 No.3133367 File: 34 KB, 340x425, lexa-732720.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3133361 angular velocity is a bitch, even to light, bro.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:52:00 2011 No.3133382 File: 72 KB, 876x619, 1273716783957.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why wouldn't this work?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:52:00 2011 No.3133381 >>3133366 What exactly is the coincidence if the precision of the input and output are exactly the same. We're not supposing the information gains precision through the function, merely that it returns the same precision.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:55:00 2011 No.3133386 >>3133382 because it's drawn like a retard?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:57:00 2011 No.3133395 >>3133382 >rocket >v=c >object with mass traveling at c What

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 20:58:00 2011 No.3133399 >>3133381 Because the information doesn't exist relative to you yet. You are making a generation which has no basis in reality, it just happens to be correct. COINCIDENCE.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:01:00 2011 No.3133413 >>3133170 Wormholes.

sage Fri May 27 21:03:00 2011 No.3133425

>>3133399
Right, but the information is still being created faster than the speed of light. Someone on gliese or even someone on earth listening to a return stream from gliese could be observing information travelling faster than light.

If the return transmission is not trivial information, then theres no difference, and it has travelled faster than light.

Anonymous Fri May 27 21:06:00 2011 No.3133431

>>3133425
Nothing has traveled faster than light. If I wrote down a series of lottery numbers on Gliese, and they turned out to correctly match a dozen lotteries held on Earth two days after the prediction was received, the information still has not traveled faster than light.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:06:00 2011 No.3133433 >>3133399 It doesn't just happen to be correct, it is indistinguishable from earth's own function, which means faster than light.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:07:00 2011 No.3133438 >>3133433 No, just because it is correct with inane precision does not mean it is suddenly not a coincidence.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:10:00 2011 No.3133446 >>3133438 Then what is the difference between me giving you a trivial function and me giving you the points described by that function? They both give you the same information+processing.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:12:00 2011 No.3133451 >>3133446 Obviously, one is before the fact and one is after the fact. Making a correct prediction does not mean the information reached you ahead of time, for fuck's sake.

Anonymous Fri May 27 21:15:00 2011 No.3133458

>>3133451
Why not? Its just as useful towards perception of reality. Someone on giese observing the weather at the precise moment it is happening wouldn't be able to distinguish between the predicted information from the actual which arrives 20 ly later.

Anonymous Fri May 27 21:21:00 2011 No.3133481

Take a red and blue marble. Put one in a box and leave it on Earth unopened. Put the other in a box and leave it unopened on the Moon. Open both at a predetermined time. Once you see that the marble you have is red you know that there is a blue marble on the moon faster than the information can be transmitted to you.

You're doing the same basic thing with your diagram. No, the information didn't travel faster than light you simply have a simulation that's 'perfect' being transmitted which takes 20 years to arrive. It would be much simpler in fact to build the 'perfect' simulator on Earth where it's useful and use it to predict twenty years into the future. It's the same thing but without the 20 year lag time.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:21:00 2011 No.3133483 >>3133458 Except one obviously came before the information existed, and could not be confirmed at the time! IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT INFORMATION.

Anonymous Fri May 27 21:28:00 2011 No.3133524

>>3133481
Right, but we want Gliese to have information about our future, which requires it to simulate the function to the starting point of our transmission. This information could be the weather, or the thought process of an individual. We also want Gliese to be able to interact with us in a non-trivial manner.

As such, when you consider the return trip, Gliese could send us information 40LY in the future far ahead of our own system.

If you take the transhuman angle, and describe a f(x) as a personality, that personality could interact with another f(x) being received from Geise, allowing information to still be exchanged faster than light.

I get that the system is not transmitting first order information faster than light, but the derivative and integral of information +/-C still gives you the original, as a consequence you've replicated information faster than light.

Because what goes into the f(x) is the same variables as what comes out, then you have non-trivially transmittted information faster than light.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:31:00 2011 No.3133538 >>3133483 So, if you had an exact twin, would you say they at conception had fundamentally different information?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:37:00 2011 No.3133568 through an artificial wormhole

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:39:00 2011 No.3133577 >>3133568 we're talking current physical reality (minus superhuman biowavecomputer)

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 21:39:00 2011 No.3133583 >>3133170 Not enough transhumanists on tonight for you OP

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 22:04:00 2011 No.3133701 >>3133170 lordy lordy, what have you done to our reality OP?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 22:08:00 2011 No.3133722 Tachyons?

>>	Adeist Fri May 27 23:31:00 2011 No.3134055 >>3133170 bump from gliese (was tomorrow, is today)

>>	Anonymous Fri May 27 23:37:00 2011 No.3134075 >>3133538 YES IN SUMMARY FUNDAMENTALLY IDENTICAL INFORMATION DOES NOT EQUAL THE SAME INFORMATION It's like You have a unique car I get an exact copy built tomorrow IT DOES NOT MEAN I STOLE YOUR CAR

>>	Adeist Fri May 27 23:38:00 2011 No.3134078 >>3134075 >>3134075 But if it's the same information, then ITS FUCKING MOVING FASTER THAN LIGHT.

Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Fri May 27 23:42:00 2011 No.3134092

I thought for quantum communication to actually succeed you'd have to send the "reading" information at conventional velocities?

ie, I'd like all sorts of scientists going on about FTL ansibles before buying into a partial explanation of a complex QM phenomenon which will as usual lead to some guy saying "yeah but you see you forgot to carry..."

Anonymous Fri May 27 23:43:00 2011 No.3134096

>>3134078
Nope. Information actually has to travel faster than light for that to be true. The same information being generated in two different places at the same time does not mean any information has traveled at all, much less faster than light.

If two random number generators on two different planets come up with the same number within seconds of each other, that does not mean any information has been transferred at any speed.

>>	Adeist Fri May 27 23:45:00 2011 No.3134102 >>3133170 ITT: People know nothing about information theory

>>	Adeist Fri May 27 23:45:00 2011 No.3134105 >>3134096 you're making trivial systems. This is a non-trivial system, the intended information is being transfered, and it is being generated faster than light.

Science !!WmHbFj2cDeS Fri May 27 23:49:00 2011 No.3134114

>>3134092
theres nothing actually quantum about this system, it just happens that a quantum computer would likely computer the earth function faster than a standard silicon one.

You can remove quantum computing from it if you posit a standard computer the size of say, jupiter.

Anonymous Fri May 27 23:54:00 2011 No.3134135

>>3134105

>the intended information is being transfered

NO IT ISN'T

AT NO POINT DOES ANY INFORMATION TRAVEL AT POINT A OR POINT B
IT IS JUST THAT IDENTICAL INFORMATION SPRINGS UP AT POINT A AND B
AT NO POINT DOES ANY INFORMATION TRAVEL ANY DISTANCE, MUCH LESS FASTER THAN LIGHT

>>	Adeist Fri May 27 23:59:00 2011 No.3134152 >>3134135 Oh, so it's magic now? Are you going to suggest that compressed information is the same size and regular information?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:04:00 2011 No.3134166 do you realize that fiber optics exist? what do you thing "information" is?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:05:00 2011 No.3134171 op, what exactly do you think "information" is? also, no, nothing can go past the speed of light http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vpu6yJPRVQ by chance, do you understand how fiber optics work?

>>	Adeist Sat May 28 00:06:00 2011 No.3134174 >>3134166 a set of patterns that describe a given abstraction.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:07:00 2011 No.3134177 >>3134166 Fiber optics transmit considerably slower than the speed of light.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:07:00 2011 No.3134178 >>3134174 transmitted via what?

>>	Science !!WmHbFj2cDeS Sat May 28 00:07:00 2011 No.3134180 >>3134171 by chance, do you know what symmetry is?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:08:00 2011 No.3134182 >>3134178 doesn't matter

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:09:00 2011 No.3134185 >>3134182 in this case, it does.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:10:00 2011 No.3134187 >>3134180 uh... not quite in the sense of physics... care to explain?

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Sat May 28 00:10:00 2011 No.3134188 >>3134114 Didn't bother with the image, just read the word 'quantum' and rolled my eyes and said "There goes that crazy /sci/ again!"

>>	sage sage Sat May 28 00:11:00 2011 No.3134190 >>3134188 Indeed, given that you support transhumanism without actually doing science or math, i'm unsurprised at your inability to do logic.

Anonymous Sat May 28 00:14:00 2011 No.3134196

>>3133170
Expand space behind the information you are sending and contract space in front of it.

Something can't travel through space at faster than C, but space itself does not suffer this limitation in the slightest, and is widely believed to be expanding at faster than light currently at any distance greater than 46 billion light years from Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:15:00 2011 No.3134199 >>3134196 if you have shit that can warp space, i think it would be simpler to just fucking make wormholes...

Anonymous Sat May 28 00:16:00 2011 No.3134204

>>3134185
No, you could posit a connection that was slower than the transmission speed of the EM field, but all this would mean is Gliese would need to have greater computing power to get to the simulation a day ahead of earth.

>This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics as far as information is concerned.
>it breaks C because it's replicating the data it's receiving faster than it is receiving it.

Science !!WmHbFj2cDeS Sat May 28 00:21:00 2011 No.3134213

>>3134204
At 20 years, gliese would be simulating the weather on earth, at 40 years, that simulation could be returned to earth, if gliese can simulate faster than 40 years, then earth can receive weather reports faster than it can transmit the data and faster than the instantenous generation from it's own computer.

Furthermore, since the variables being transmited and the variables outputted by the function, both computers could be linked to create and infinite simulation an arbitrary distance into the future even when the computing power is finite.

>>	Theist Sat May 28 00:23:00 2011 No.3134217 >>3134213 Thus proving god's existence.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 00:24:00 2011 No.3134222 >>3134199 That's what a wormhole is.

>>	sage sage sage sage Sat May 28 00:28:00 2011 No.3134233 Well I'm off to bed. I'm glad no one took the time to examine this to anything but a superficial depth. Perhaps one day /sci/ will be more than pop-sci and religion.

Anonymous Sat May 28 00:56:00 2011 No.3134310

>>3134213
So, why can't we just imagine we have an arbitrarily powerful supercomputer on earth that can run the calculation, or that our alien supercomputer is only three miles from earth or whatever. You're not transmitting information faster than light, you're just processing it quickly.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 01:00:00 2011 No.3134331 >>3134233 What? 4th post said it all.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 01:07:00 2011 No.3134357 >>3134213 First of all you cannot do perfect weather simulations because weather is an chaotic system. To do perfect simulation you would have to simulate every single molecule and electron on Earth and that's not happening.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 10:22:00 2011 No.3135745 >>3134331 4th post just extrapolated that the 1st order information is traveling at c, not that the information being transmitted, the 2nd order, wasn't travelling faster than light.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 28 11:51:00 2011 No.3135966 >>3133170 sage

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math