1. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8072
    09 Nov '09 04:26
    Okay I just watched an episode of The Universe, and the topic was Entanglement with regard to Spooky Action at a Distance. The physicist interviewed said that only "three people on the planet" understand these concepts, and "the rest of us just stare at the mathematics and get queasy." So, the three MUST be out there somewhere in RHP Land, right? So, 'fess up!! Let's hear it--I want to know. Just what IS Entanglement, and can we use it to build a Star Trek-style transporter or not? 😀
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Nov '09 05:09
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    Let's hear it--I want to know. Just what IS Entanglement, and can we use it to build a Star Trek-style transporter or not? 😀
    No, with what we know today, this entanglement cannot transmit any information, nor any matter. This is a common misconception.
    The Einstein postulate, that no information can be transmitted in any way faster than light, still holds.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    09 Nov '09 16:51
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    No, with what we know today, this entanglement cannot transmit any information, nor any matter. This is a common misconception.
    The Einstein postulate, that no information can be transmitted in any way faster than light, still holds.
    So far anyway. I would not be surprised to find some twist of the rules that allows such things in the future. Just me dreaming of course but I bet there is a way somehow.

    It turns out the older rules about absolute location V absolute velocity is not cut in stone, you can temporarily get more information than the normal laws allow if you pay for the consequences down the road. Same goes for the quantum limits on detectability of signals, so I hope for the day when they find a way to break the Einstein speed limit.
  4. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    09 Nov '09 22:23
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    Okay I just watched an episode of The Universe, and the topic was Entanglement with regard to Spooky Action at a Distance. The physicist interviewed said that only "three people on the planet" understand these concepts, and "the rest of us just stare at the mathematics and get queasy." So, the three MUST be out there somewhere in RHP Land, right? So, 'f ...[text shortened]... what IS Entanglement, and can we use it to build a Star Trek-style transporter or not? 😀
    There's some way of getting two tiny particles to hook up and become true loves. Once you do this, they have a soul connection. No matter how far apart they are separated, if they are looked at simultaneously by two people, they will be in opposite "positions" (out of two possible positions); one will be yin, and the other yang kinda thing.

    However since the two people looking at the particles are too far apart to communicate, and there's no way to control which particle is in which 'position', there is no way to use this to send a message or do anything interesting with.
  5. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8072
    10 Nov '09 03:18
    So when the friendly physicist said that it IS acceptable to "break" the speed of light barrier if it is SPACE itself that moves faster than light (and not light itself moving THROUGH space), then he was correct? Seemed like a pretty big loophole when it comes to breaking one of the fundamental rules (at least as I was taught), which is that NOTHING can EVER move faster than the speed of light.
    But if true, I can dig it---I'm a rules lawyer from waaay back, and I could always sniff out a curve in the rules of a game that not even the designer thought of 😉
    so I'm all for sneaking in the back door and letting space expand faster than light can travel.
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Nov '09 04:381 edit
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    So when the friendly physicist said that it IS acceptable to "break" the speed of light barrier if it is SPACE itself that moves faster than light (and not light itself moving THROUGH space), then he was correct? Seemed like a pretty big loophole when it comes to breaking one of the fundamental rules (at least as I was taught), which is that NOTHING can E I'm all for sneaking in the back door and letting space expand faster than light can travel.
    What friendly physicist? What exactly did he say?

    It is true that the expansion of space can do weird things with respect to the speed of light. I'm not an expert on it, but I could probably read up on it really quick. Who is this physicist?

    You would be a natural physicist. Scientists are rules lawyers, but the game is reality. Technology comes from when scientists learn to exploit some loophole in the rules. This is why I have come to dislike tabletop roleplaying with a GM - what in real life is called "an innovative mind" is often called "a cheater" in online gaming or a "rules lawyer" in tabletop roleplaying.
  7. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Nov '09 06:25
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Technology comes from when scientists learn to exploit some loophole in the rules.
    Oh, on this I don't agree.

    If you use loopholes, then we're talking about miracles, not physics.

    If we by rules mean laws of Universe, or laws of physics, then loopholes are not possible. If our theory is written correctly and then there is no loopholes. If there is, then we have to rewrite the theory.

    Example: Einstein found a loophole in the Newtonian gravitational laws, so they were rewritten by Einstein. That 'loophole' is now exploited in modern technology, but not as a loophole, but as an extention to the Newtonian laws, now labelled as the Einsteinian relativity theory.
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    11 Nov '09 01:384 edits
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    So when the friendly physicist said that it IS acceptable to "break" the speed of light barrier if it is SPACE itself that moves faster than light (and not light itself moving THROUGH space), then he was correct? Seemed like a pretty big loophole when it comes to breaking one of the fundamental rules (at least as I was taught), which is that NOTHING can E I'm all for sneaking in the back door and letting space expand faster than light can travel.
    I think what the guy might have been talking about is this:

    The universe is expanding - space itself is expanding. What does that mean? Every object is moving away from every other object. I guess it's kind of like everything in the universe is shrinking relative to the universe as a whole. Thus distances between things are constantly increasing.

    Suppose light travels from point A to point B in time T. The speed of light would be equivalent to

    c = (B-A)/T

    Now suppose that after the light travelled, the space it had travelled expanded. B-A, the distance between the two points, increases.

    Thus we could say the light travelled from point A to point B faster than the speed of light; however when it did it, it travelled shorter distance at the speed of light rather than the same distance faster than the speed of light.

    I suppose one could say that the speed of light used to be greater and will be less in the future in Universe units, but then you'd also have to agree everything is shrinking.

    Instead of describing it this way (which may not be 100% correct anyway) we describe it as space expanding and distances increasing - and a constant speed of light.
  9. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8072
    11 Nov '09 18:46
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    What friendly physicist? What exactly did he say?

    It is true that the expansion of space can do weird things with respect to the speed of light. I'm not an expert on it, but I could probably read up on it really quick. Who is this physicist?

    You would be a natural physicist. Scientists are rules lawyers, but the game is reality. Technology c ...[text shortened]... is often called "a cheater" in online gaming or a "rules lawyer" in tabletop roleplaying.
    I don't remember the physicist's name--she was one of the many talking heads they have on such shows to explain these bizarre facts in layman's terms, so I (supposedly) can understand them. The jump to "space being able to move faster than the speed of light" came up when discussing the big bang, and the claim was that this did NOT violate Einstein's "interstellar speed limit", because all he said was than nothing can move faster than light "IN SPACE". But he never said space itself couldn't so move. That gets back to the "rules lawyering" joke I tried to make--I see I failed. But I don't believe there should be any loopholes in science--either something is a fact or it isn't. There should be no "in between".
    {As for D&D and other games, rules lawyers like me perform a necessary function: we MAKE the designers do their jobs by: A) doing the proofreaers' jobs for them, and B) point out EVERY possible scenario that could arise and force the designer to correct his rulebook accordingly. That's why companies love us beta-testers; we always make sure the developer accounts for the psycho factor.}
  10. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8072
    11 Nov '09 18:49
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Oh, on this I don't agree.

    If you use loopholes, then we're talking about miracles, not physics.

    If we by rules mean laws of Universe, or laws of physics, then loopholes are not possible. If our theory is written correctly and then there is no loopholes. If there is, then we have to rewrite the theory.

    Example: Einstein found a loophole in the Ne ...[text shortened]... ut as an extention to the Newtonian laws, now labelled as the Einsteinian relativity theory.
    But did Albert really mean whjat he said: "NOTHING can exceed the speed of light?" (which was the implication made on the episode I watched. If so, then the "fact" that space expands (or has expanded) at faster than the speed of light either proves Einstein wrong, or requires a rules revision to cover this loophole (we call this "errata" in the game world, and it is greatly frowned upon) 😀
  11. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Nov '09 21:52
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    But did Albert really mean whjat he said: "NOTHING can exceed the speed of light?" (which was the implication made on the episode I watched. If so, then the "fact" that space expands (or has expanded) at faster than the speed of light either proves Einstein wrong, or requires a rules revision to cover this loophole (we call this "errata" in the game world, and it is greatly frowned upon) 😀
    Didn't he say something like 'nothing with mass cannot go *in* the speed of light'? Meaning that if you just can accellerate to a supervelocity without touching the lightspeed itself, it may very well be possible?
    The space itself is massless, so that can have any velocity as it pleases, and therefore everything in it. (I might be wrong here...)
  12. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    11 Nov '09 23:361 edit
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    But did Albert really mean whjat he said: "NOTHING can exceed the speed of light?" (which was the implication made on the episode I watched. If so, then the "fact" that space expands (or has expanded) at faster than the speed of light either proves Einstein wrong, or requires a rules revision to cover this loophole (we call this "errata" in the game world, and it is greatly frowned upon) 😀
    Nothing with mass can move at the speed of light, and massless particles move at the speed of light.

    Space doesn't move through space.

    What happens if velocities were greater than c...well, this doesn't make the equation "blow up" [sorry for the technical mathematical terminology 😉 ] But you can't get there without going through all the speeds in between...for now anyway!
  13. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    11 Nov '09 23:512 edits
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    I don't remember the physicist's name--she was one of the many talking heads they have on such shows to explain these bizarre facts in layman's terms, so I (supposedly) can understand them. The jump to "space being able to move faster than the speed of light" came up when discussing the big bang, and the claim was that this did NOT violate Einstein's "int a-testers; we always make sure the developer accounts for the psycho factor.}
    I got your joke. I just think that the link between scientists and rules lawyers is so profound that I wanted to expand on it. I like to compare the rules of reality to the rules of games. I find tabletop gaming annoying because there are too many "miracles" - the GM overriding the rules.

    OK, so we don't like the word "loophole". I was using it in a casual sense. What I meant was that players can find ways in tabletop roleplaying to exploit the written rules in order to get some dramatic, nonintuitive effect in the game that was likely not intended by either the games designers or the GM.

    Of course, in reality, if there's a "GM" (God), he probably knows all the consequences of all his rules, but humans get the rules wrong. We make approximations that work really well but aren't quite right.

    Those approximations, not the fundamental laws of the universe, were the "rules" scientists find "loopholes" in. But fine, I'll accept that "loophole" may not have been the most formally correct way to express my point.
  14. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8072
    12 Nov '09 00:34
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Didn't he say something like 'nothing with mass cannot go *in* the speed of light'? Meaning that if you just can accellerate to a supervelocity without touching the lightspeed itself, it may very well be possible?
    The space itself is massless, so that can have any velocity as it pleases, and therefore everything in it. (I might be wrong here...)
    That may have indeed been the correct quote. I was just going by what they said in the episode.
  15. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8072
    12 Nov '09 00:37
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Nothing with mass can move at the speed of light, and massless particles move at the speed of light.

    Space doesn't move through space.

    What happens if velocities were greater than c...well, this doesn't make the equation "blow up" [sorry for the technical mathematical terminology 😉 ] But you can't get there without going through all the speeds in between...for now anyway!
    So space has no mass (this point was not expounded upon, probably because we were supposed to know that already 😀 ) but still, his point was that space (massless though it is) can and does exceed the speed of light, and this I did not know was possible.
Back to Top