Skip to main content




Scientists achieve quantum teleportation breakthrough that could prove Einstein wrong

by James Vicent, independent.co.uk -- May 30, 2014

[...]
In a letter written in 1947 Einstein said he could not take quantum mechanics seriously because "physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance."

The team at Delft's experiments show that we're getting better all the time at creating these "spooky actions", but their experiments will have to be duplicated over far greater distances to show that signals between entangled particles occur at the speed of light.
[...]

         
                   [Image Source:  science1.nasa.gov ]


Here's the Einsteinian critique, very roughly put:

      "How in our Newtonian world, can we have a instantaneous game of long-distance Telephone -- without the 'tin cans and strings' -- that is, without the E-M waves (ie. information signals trudging along at the speed of light {c}) ?"

To have information instantaneous "transported" that way -- across the void -- without any 'medium' to do the transporting -- is indeed kind of "spooky."  

Knock on wood here,  and hear the echoing taps way over there -- is kind of eerie indeed.


Teleportation Is Real and Here'€™s Why it Matters

by Jeffrey Kluger, time.com -- May 30, 2014

[...]
What the Dutch physicists did involved something called quantum entanglement, which Einstein once described as "spooky action at a distance,"€ a term that pretty much describes what it is. Entangled particles are sort of the dysfunctional couples of quantum physics. You know that long-distance relationship you had in college that didn'€™t really work out and every time you and your significant other got on the phone or exchanged an e-mail you wound up getting into a fight and feeling a whole lot lousier than you did five minutes before? That's action at a distance.
[...]

The point is, the Delft researchers proved the principle by isolating target entangled electrons inside two supercooled diamonds placed 10 meters -- or 33 ft. -- apart, creating what one of the physicists described as "miniprisons"€ for them. They then manipulated their spin rate and determined that the behavior of one indeed continued to determine the spin of the other, and vice versa, even at that distance. Something similar had been achieved before, in 2009, by University of Maryland researchers, but the experiment worked only one out of every 100 million attempts. This one succeeded 100% of the time. Next, the Dutch plan to expand their work -- literally -- trying to see if the quantum entanglement holds at a distance of 1 kilometer, or .62 mi.
[...]


         
                   [Image Source:  dreamstime.com ]


How in the Newtonian world, can you be long-distantly wired -- without the wires?


Well, there was this quantum entanglement experiment carried out successfully, several years ago -- that demonstrated this "spooky effect" over a distance of 11 miles.  Extrapolated out, it broke the Einstein Cosmic Speed Limit {the speed of light} -- by about 10,000 times!


    [Image Source:  Scientific Frontline -- sflorg.com ]


Quite simply incredible.  If it becomes consistently confirmed (as the recent Delft break-through seems poised to do).


Einstein's spooky action acts at 10,000 times the speed of light

by Roger Highfield, Science Editor -- 13 Aug 2008

A spooky effect that could in theory connect particles at the opposite ends of the universe has been measured and found to exert its unsettling influence more than 10,000 times faster than the speed of light.
[...]

Einstein realised that if you separated these atoms, even by a vast distance, they would still be described by the same wave function. In the jargon, they were "entangled", as if their fate was connected in some way.

This may not sound so special: after all, anyone with a cell phone can achieve something similar, talking to someone on the other side of the planet with ease. The difference is that even if entangled particles are separated by billions of light-years, the fate of one instantly affects the fate of all its partners.

Einstein famously dismissed even the theoretical possibility of entanglement as "spooky action-at-a-distance".
[...]


One question:  Who's going to hand out the speeding infraction tickets, each time this 186K Einstein Speed Limit gets broken?


    [Image Source:  universetoday.com ]


Loophole in Spooky Quantum Entanglement Theory Closed

by Tia Ghose, LiveScience staff writer, livescience.com -- April 17, 2013

[...]
The implications were that individual entangled particles don't exist in a particular state until they are measured, and that, once measured, the particles could somehow communicate their state to each other at a rate faster than the speed of light -- which seemed to violate Einstein's theory of relativity. (Recent research suggests the entangled particles interact at a speed that's 10,000 times faster than the speed of light.)

Scientists Report Finding Reliable Way to Teleport Data

by John Markoff, nytimes.com -- May 29, 2014

[...]
"There is a big race going on between five or six groups to prove Einstein wrong,"€ said Ronald Hanson, a physicist who leads the group at Delft. "€œThere is one very big fish."€

             
                   [Image Source:  AboutAlbertEinstein.com ]


SO, why does it matter if Einstein's Cosmic Speed Limit turns out to be untrue -- subject to loopholes and fine-print?  What difference does it make?

Well, it potentially makes the galaxy a lot smaller more reachable -- if there is a Galactic Google that can be down-loaded at the drop of a few photons ... maybe we just need to find the right Cosmic ISP ...


Two ancient worlds found just 13 light-years from Earth

by Deborah Netburn, latimes.com -- June 4, 2014

Scientists have discovered two ancient planets orbiting a strange old star right in our stellar backyard.

One of the newly found planets is perhaps five times the mass of Earth, and astronomers believe it is the right distance from the host star to potentially sustain liquid water on its surface. That means it could be suited for life.
[...]

The two newly found planets orbit Kapteyn's star, a red dwarf star that lies a relatively close 13 light-years away.  It is currently the 25th closest star to our planet, although that has and will change over time.
[...]

Kapteyn's star is known as a "halo" star, part of a group of stars that follow a strange orbit through the Milky Way galaxy.
[...]


           
               [Image Source:  wikipedia.org -- Mass-€“energy equivalence, special relativity ]


If Einstein could be wrong about Quantum Entanglement -- what else could he be wrong about?  ... perhaps the relative {constraining} nature of his space-time physics itself?

Perhaps, some of his own 'second thoughts' can yield some light on the 'universality' of his own 'deterministic' constructs ...


Einstein Doesn't Play Dice

Spooky Physics, Einstein vs. Bohr, Part II

by Andrea Diem-Lane, Professor of Philosophy at Mt. San Antonio College

[...]
The fact that quantum theory involves a connection between a measuring device and how we can ascertain reality was, for Einstein, fundamentally problematic. In a famous letter to Max Born, dated March 3, 1947, Einstein outlines why:
   I cannot make a case for my attitude in physics which you would consider at all reasonable. I admit, of course, that there is a considerable amount of validity in the statistical approach which you were the first to recognize clearly as necessary given the framework of the existing formalism. I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance. I am, however, not yet firmly convinced that it can really be achieved with a continuous field theory, although I have discovered a possible way of doing this which so far seems quite reasonable. The calculation difficulties are so great that I will be biting the dust long before I myself can be fully convinced of it. But I am quite convinced that someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently. I cannot, however, base this conviction on logical reasons, but can only produce my little finger as witness, that is, I offer no authority which would be able to command any kind of respect outside of my own hand."€
[...]

As Einstein near the end of his life pointed out, "€œIt seems to be clear, therefore, that Born's statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible one. The wave function does not in any way describe a state which could be that of a single system; it relates rather to many systems, to an 'ensemble of systems' in the sense of statistical mechanics."€


Or, put another way, in Einstein's own vernacular:


    [Image Source:  energyquotes.com -- Einstein Quotes ]

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

-- Albert Einstein


In other words, Think differently.  Think outside of the box, that they gave you.  

Entangled, may be the state of all these complex systems, that we find ourselves, somehow mysteriously bound to.

When we act, they way over there, must react ...



EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  God Not Only Plays Dice -- He's an Epic Prankster. (78+ / 0-)

    Einstein did not get his Nobel prize for his legendary work on relativity, speed of light, E=MC^2 and such.

    He got it for an early, maybe the first validation of quantum science. He showed that the photoelectric effect of light knocking electrons off metal in a vacuum, basis for the first electric eyes, was done via the quantum particle effect of light which otherwise was always following the laws of waves.

    He got his prize for validating the branch of science he fought for the rest of his career.

    So in one sense this is proving him right, in the process jerking him around one more time.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:24:41 PM PDT

    •  I am still trying to wrap my mind.... (19+ / 0-)

      around the concept of an infinite number of universes.....and with it the idea that if the actual number of universes IS infinite, the odds are very good that some of them are totally parallel to others...perhaps ours.

      And thus, as I sit here at my computer on a June morning, typing this message, somewhere else, in another universe, someone who looks like me, wearing the same clothes, and sits in a room just like this, is typing exactly the same thing on his iMac and adding it to a discussion of string theory on Daily Kos II or infinity.

      Freakin fascinating....

      Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

      by dweb8231 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:21:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And which of those universes Is "real" depends ... (20+ / 0-)

        And which of those universes

        Is "real" depends on where we focus our attention.

        "Mr Bohr, I'd like to introduce you to Sr Casteneda and his friends Don Juan and Don Genaro"

        •  They're Fiction, You Know (8+ / 0-)

          Castaneda's books are interesting and fun, but they're fiction, despite his elaborate attempts to present them as fact. BTW, he let a tiny cult based on his fictions - perhaps they're better described as delusions.

          A more interesting fiction of the multiverse is Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber, or the even more psychedelic Eternal Champion cycles by Michael Moorcock.

          FWIW, it's probably all a delusion, and we experience only the particular ficton that we believe we do.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:16:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "You know it's a meaningless question to ask... (7+ / 0-)

            if those stories are right... what matters most is the feeling you get when you're hypnotized."

                              -- Bob Welch, "Hypnotized"

          •  Castaneda should have offered them as such. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4Freedom, dackmont, Sandino, ridovem

            Had he said, "I'm going to write a series of fictional stories based on my research about these peoples and their beliefs, and I'm going to write it from the point-of-view that their beliefs are in some way true," he would have been hailed as one of the great writers of religiously-based fiction.

            Instead, by claiming those stories were factual, he ended up with a scandal and a mess when it was discovered that he got the background material from library research and didn't go into the field.

            In the long run, we can & should just read them as straight-up fiction and evaluate their worth on that basis.

            When I read them in high school, my take was that they were at least partially fiction in the sense of dreams or psychedelic trips.  You know a guy named Bob who really exists, and you dream about going surfing with him, and while you're surfing you both briefly turn into fish.  Bob's a physically real person, surfing is a real activity but not something you and Bob have actually done together, and "turning into fish" is "dream logic" stuff that doesn't happen in our physical reality but "makes sense" in a dream.

            I thought Castaneda probably met some of those people, listened to their stories, and then wrote these books as "what if?"  I thought he probably took some indigenous psychedelics somewhere along the line and then incorporated the trip content forward and backward into the stories to make a point about the worldview of the people he studied.  Much of what he describes comes across as "trip logic" which should be viewed as metaphor rather than literally true, and that throws open the rest of the story to being viewed that way.

            Some years later I coined the phrase "psychedelic fundamentalism" to describe the kind of thinking whereby people interpret their psychedelic trip content, and other types of altered states content, as literally true rather than as symbolic.  

            I'm inclined to think that Castaneda's problem was a blurred boundary between reality and his own subjectivity: he didn't exactly set out to defraud anyone with malice aforethought, but then he got caught up in his own subjective interpretations and flights of fantasy, and believed that he literally went to places and met with people who only existed in his mind.  This is more common than it appears, and not just in schizophrenics and highly creative people (which are not the same thing).  

            Atheists say that all religious believers are engaged in this sort of thing, but in a wider context, a large range of "stuff" that exists as cultural beliefs, is of this type.  For "exhibit A," see also Santa Claus.  What our culture really needs, to get over its un-sustainable obsession with consumer goods, is a big dose of atheism about Santa Claus.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:27:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hard to divine Castaneda's motives, but (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ridovem, DocGonzo

              ... to whatever degree he engaged in "psychedelic fundamentalism" (marvelous coinage, btw), I agree his writings were fun and fascinating.  Haven't read them all, but got the general gist, and I too was surprised when I found out that they apparently weren't intended as at least partially fictional.

              On the obsession with consumerism.... this reminds me of the story of the king who asked his court's philosopher to come up with an aphorism* that he could have inscribed on his ring, and that would make him feel happy when he was sad, and sad when he was happy.  The philosopher's answer, which pleased the king, was:

              This too shall pass
              (*I'm getting old.  I knew there was a word I wanted, like "saying" or "dictum", but pertaining to a brief turn of phrase as opposed to a parable or fable.  "Aphorism" was it, but it took awhile to dredge it up!  I appreciate the mental exercise; the, um, aphorism "use it or lose it" certainly applies to the mind.)

              Anyway, great comment; adding you to my "follow" list. cheers

              "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

              by dackmont on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 12:08:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I Agree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dackmont

              I think Casteneda got caught up in the "make your own reality" while tripping out with Mexicans at UCLA. By his own philosophy, he "transformed" from reading others' experiences in the library into living them in the Yaqui desert. He believed in the malleability of reality through the "allies", and the more fundamental nature of his imagined scenes than of the physical reality.

              He got a few good-looking, fierce women to buy into it too, and created a micro cult for them to live in the bubble. Years of unquestioning adulation from many drug people and from people who need an imaginary reality to replace the real reality (not at all usually the same people) reinforced the bubble. People who revered his persona without knowing the real person. Critics easily dismissed as "squares", while turning to a "higher reality".

              Really just an extreme case of what most of us do with our lives: construct a working reality with us as (or very near) the center of what all reality turns on. Especially people with a religious interest do that. This guy was unusual in that he published, first academically then in the popular press at the right time for lots of people to take it "literally". The rest of us just take a self-serving working illusion and update it as reality's hard parts force us to.

              The fault really lies with UCLA's anthro grad school. They should have found out it was made up by at least performing the timeline analysis of his story that showed impossible sequences, as later critics did after he started giving anthropology something of a quack reputation. It was UCLA's job to vet that.

              I expect that if his thesis were rejected, he would have taken the same route to the popular press. It might even have liberated him from his own dogma, and freed him to appreciate the illusion as illusion though no less powerful.

              But who can blame him? It all worked out very well for him, though he died pretty young. Or didn't he just morph into a younger form...

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:09:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Castenada the fraud? Are you Kidding? (6+ / 0-)

          As a true Peyotero, who had begun reading Casteneda long after I began my journey in the proper desert (not the Sonoran as Casteneda claimed) and had already become familiar with the true culture (the Huichole, not the Yaqui as Casteneda also gets wrong) of the peoples who had been using Lophophora for thousands of years already; not for a mere century as all the other Central and North American peoples had been, as is historical truth, not Hollywood truth. That's the simple history of it and the first clue to me that Casteneda was a fraud.

          Then there is being a true Peyotero, and knowing the succulent and it's nature well enough to know that all of Casteneda's stories of witches and his battles against them using the "allies" of Lophophora, and Datura (taking the later is not a good idea) were simply a psychological upchucking of his chronic misogynistic ideals.  Lophophora is far beyond gender, and it's uninhibited message, is of the scientific truth that "All Is One", not of fighting witches and the many evil sorcerer's abound that wanted to steal your power as Castenada professed.

          As mentioned in a post above, Castenada has long been proved to be one of the world's greatest tricksters; fooling academia world wide and growing rich because of it.  I feel sorry for those still ignorant to his disgusting treachery and suggest that you make the journey to Huiricuta yourself, where you will find the Kingdom of Lophophora more beautiful than man can imagine.  Also read some of Huxley's fine work on the succulent, and it's nature.

          Casteneda disappeared from the world as soon as people began to sniff out the truth of his work, and would never grant a single interview on the subject (a true coward, and another fine example of his deceit).  A true Peyotero is a mystic and seeks only truth.  As Casteneda's cult abandoned him and he grew sick from many of his destructive behaviors, especially alcoholism, he was left with only two female followers.  After his death, one died in mysterious circumstances and the other disappeared and I believe, is also believed dead (perhaps her corpse was found, I can't recall right now).

          My point to all of this is anyone still believing his atrocious accounts of the most divine plant the world has ever known, are simply ignorant to the truth.  Going to Huiricuta and meeting Lophophora personally is the only way to know the beautiful truth about it.  BTW, I'm not talking about mescaline, which is a farce of the real thing and made with alcohol, destroying literally hundreds of very important alkaline's found in Lophophora during the process of creating it.  You don't need a guide, you just need the courage to realize you are already the guide and have set yourself on the right path.  Good luck to you and best wishes.

          •  Castaneda = fraud, trickster, etc... and yet (0+ / 0-)

            Without Castaneda's trippy writing, far fewer people would have opened themselves up to delve into these wanderings into 'other' cultural mysteries; and- perhaps more important- the realm of their own consciousness (aided and abetted by "psychedelic" substances or not).
            If "all Castaneda did" was to study the results of others' research on practices involving peyote, datura, etc etc and then create fantasies based upon his studies, one could say that, on some level, he's in the same ballpark with those who provided us with "holy scripture" (or what has become so).
            I wouldn't feel comfortable condemning him for that. We all must be reading, weighing our own experiences against the tales of others, etc with our grains of salt handy.  ^..^

            Peace?.. where's the money in That?
             
        •  Each universe is real. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ridovem

          And through all of them, our various selves go through all of the choices that we face in our lives, often taking different paths. Some would say that we might be reincarnated into each different path.

          I know that I do not know.

      •  That explains how evil twins in movies work! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thanatokephaloides

        Remember how not only does the evil twin know exactly when and where our hero is going to be somewhere, the twin has an identical wardrobe, car, etc.!

      •  Try Max Tegmark's "The Mathematical Universe" (3+ / 0-)

        for a good discussion of multiverses.

      •  Imagine we live in a coconut (6+ / 0-)

        Imagine we live in a coconut

        no, really

        we live in a coconut. whatever tree made our coconut can make more, and there can be more trees.

        all the "infinite universes" hypothesis is saying is that, if something could create our universe, it could create more, so we shouldn't act like we're unique

        and that there's no reason to think the number of universes shouldn't be infinite, since there's no reason to put a limit on it

        but the chance that any two atoms are in the same juxtaposition in two different universes is still infinitesimally small, so the chance that enough atoms so as to form a person who looks like you, dresses like you, and thinks like you, in a society that created a forum just like this, is infinitely infinitesimally small. and so dividing infinite universes by infinitely infinitesimal probabilities leaves 1/infinity. so no, that ain't gonna happen.

        (n.b.: this is the same way you defeat Pascal's Wager; he merely divided the infinite rewards of heaven by the infinitesimal chance of there being a god, but he forgot to consider that there are an infinity of possible gods who aren't his god, and that his chance of choosing the correct one is itself infinitesimal, so it's infinite rewards divided by an infinitesimal chance of choosing the right being that has an infinitesimal chance of existing. again, 1/infinity and thus zero expected value for the wager, thus total waste of any effort to posit or accomplish it).

        •  But if the number of Universes is infinite, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          petral, rmx2630, ridovem

          then that must include an infinite number of exact copies of our Universe. Infinity is the death of probability.

          Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

          by Anne Elk on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:44:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (6+ / 0-)
            But if the number of Universes is infinite, then that must include an infinite number of exact copies of our Universe.
            No it mustn't. Indeed, there is no reason that it should.

            There are an infinite number of positive integers. That doesn't mean that more than one of them is 1. There are an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, but only one of them is zero, and none of them are 2.

            •  Nor no reason it should not. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ridovem

              The two sets you describe are ordinal.  Does that apply to sets of universes?

              The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

              by GreatLakeSailor on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:14:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  this is one of the great metaphysical questions... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GreatLakeSailor

                ... of our time, and nicely expressed.  

                The way I think about this is to start by assuming that "infinite number of me living infinite number of the same life" is not true.  Parallel sets can contain the same integers and coexist if they don't interact, but that doesn't mean that the numerals from one set are "identical with" the numerals from another set, in the sense that the letters used in each of these words are identical letters but the words differ.

                We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:40:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  An infinite series does not require nor imply a... (0+ / 0-)

                An infinite series does not require nor imply a repeating series, though it also does not preclude it. The infinite universe theories mainly seem to deal with one of two views: infinite universes with different physical laws or infinite universes spawned by infinitesimal "differences" within a single core universe. Also, these are not mutually exclusive. They can both be correct leaving us with an Aleph 1 series of sowing physical laws from which sprang an Aleph 2 Series of universes sharing our physical laws but with minute changes at each "choice" point, interpreted at the Planck time level.

        •  nicely done. (0+ / 0-)

          Starting out by saying "we live in a coconut" is an excellent way to detach the concepts from the risk of "literalizing" whereby people interpret "infinite universes" to mean "an infinite number of me living an infinite number of the exact same lives."

          Instant meme; I'm going to start using it.

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:36:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But coconuts can't migrate. Unless... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino

          ...two swallows, working together, grip the husks with their feet. So there's your expansion taken care of.

          I call this Wing Theory (African or European).

      •  that scenario is offered as an example... (0+ / 0-)

        ... to illustrate the point about infinite universes.  But I would be very cautious about believing it's literally true that there's an infinite number of each of us living exactly the same lives right now.  

        I would take the example as symbolic rather than literal, and consider other ways in which an infinite number of universes could both vary from one another and resemble one another.  

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:30:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A monkey is typing it on an iMac. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubt." Bertrand Russell I'm very certain that is true. 10−122

        by thestructureguy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:03:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think (9+ / 0-)

      that Einstein knew that not all  observable effects were capable of being described by Newtonian physics, the reality of solid objects in the here and now.  He admitted to not knowing the math/science that would one day prove there was more, and that he would not live long enough to see it.

      As a scientist he probably hated to state as fact what he believed but couldn't prove.

      To me his letter quoted in this diary was an expression of faith that there was a science that could some day explain spooky effects at a distance.  But his science was limited by Newtonian phsyics in the here and now.  And in that sphere, that group of effects,  there is a speed limit.

      But I am quite convinced that someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently. I cannot, however, base this conviction on logical reasons, but can only produce my little finger as witness, that is, I offer no authority which would be able to command any kind of respect outside of my own hand."€
      •  Strickly speaking (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, cybersaur, JosephK74, Railfan

        Einstein's Special Relativity disproved Newtonian Physics.  Well, it showed that if relative velocities were much less than the speed of light (v<

        The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

        by GreatLakeSailor on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:27:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, the rest of my comment is missing... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Railfan, ridovem
          Einstein's Special Relativity disproved Newtonian Physics.  Well, it showed that if relative velocities were much less than the speed of light (v<
          ...much less than the speed of light (v < < c) (Ah! 2 less-than signs in a row!) then F=ma.  As v approaches c then Newton breaks down.

          The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

          by GreatLakeSailor on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:08:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I always considered it (5+ / 0-)

      a decidedly mean game of cosmic billiards. God's got a hell of a bank shot... §;o)

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:24:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He also chided himself on the "blunder" (5+ / 0-)

      of his Cosmological Constant.

      But he just used it on the wrong side of the equation.


      "Republicans: the party that brought us 'Just Say No.' First as a drug policy, then as their entire platform." ---Stephen Colbert

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:25:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing wrong with being wrong (13+ / 0-)

      Einstein believed most of QM. The only thing he didn't believe is the  transmission of action (and therefore information and force and energy) at speeds in excess of c.  He had good reason not to believe in it, since it's the basis for Special Relativity and General Relativity.  If c isn't the limit, then those things don't work. But they do work, they've been proved to work and he knew that then.

      That's why this is "spooky." It doesn't just violate c, it operates compeletely outside any realm of spacetime and force that we've ever seen before. It's as big a deal as the shock of finding any quantized effects after centuries of understanding the universe as a continuum (albeit, Newton knew light was corpuscular, "because I grind my own lenses" -- he knew he wasn't making a perfectly smooth surface but just making the scratches smaller, and a scratched surface would disrupt continuous waves, but not so much for particles...).

      So Einstein didn't buy it.  I'm not buying it either, until they've made the error bars smaller than the data (that's why they need to separate the equipment; they can, reportedly, see that an effect on one particle is the cause for an effect on the other, but they can't tell how fast it's happening precisely enough to rule out c as the limit).

      I'm also not really convinced they saw what they say they saw. But I haven't read their actual paper. It's just way too easy for people trying to describe QM secondhand to completely screw it up with inadequate metaphors. "Like a particle or a wave" makes my teeth hurt. And "100%" is always suspect in real-world experiments, infinitely moreso in QM experiments. So this might not be what people think it is, after all.

      •  Wasn't there another 'break the speed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thanatokephaloides

        limit' story last year, that turns out was experimental error?

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:56:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  At least one place..... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GussieFN, Anne Elk, G2geek

          .... we know of that c was violated as an absolute limit.

          The universe we live in is far greater in diameter than 15 billion light years; yet it is only 15 billion years old.

          (No real explanation yet exists; that's admitted.)

          :-)

          "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

          by thanatokephaloides on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:22:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Universe "appears" to be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thanatokephaloides

            greater than 15 billion light years wide. That measure is based, I presume, on observation. Since space is time over such distances, isn't it possible that such estimates are just wrong?

            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

            by Anne Elk on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:48:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There was an early inflationary period (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              thanatokephaloides, Anne Elk

              In the early Universe, that is to say in the first second or so of the Universe, the Universe expanded greatly, as proposed by Alan Guth and later expanded by Andrei Linde. There is some evidence that this did in fact happen as measurements of a primordial B-mode polarization appear. So the size of the Universe can "legally" be much larger than than the expansion of the Universe at the speed for 13. 8 billion years (which would make a Universe 27.6 light years across) might appear to allow.

              My point is that there is an explanation of the size of the Universe. Quantum entanglement is also allowed and does not really contradict Einstein's relativity either.......and there is much proof of quantum entaglement dating back decades. Just because Einstein didn't like it, doesn't make it wrong.

              Remember that Neils Bohr chastised Einstein in asking Einstein to "stop telling God what to do".

          •  Hyperinflation (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek, thanatokephaloides

            The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

            by GreatLakeSailor on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:34:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  expansion of spacetime. (3+ / 0-)

            The spacetime frame can expand at faster than c, even though movement of objects within the frame is limited to c.

            That's the current scientific consensus, though of course it may change if warranted by new findings.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:48:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Expansion does not violate relativity (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thanatokephaloides

            The expansion of the universe does not violate relativity because space-time itself is expanding. You can't really measure distance and speed when the path itself keeps getting longer and longer...

            +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

            by cybersaur on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:11:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  100% (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, tarkangi
        And "100%" is always suspect in real-world experiments, infinitely moreso in QM experiments.
        I'm pretty sure that the "100%" was referring to "this batch of experiments", not universally.

        "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

        by thanatokephaloides on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:19:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bertrand Russell's Chicken (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          petral
          The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken
          One of my favorite parables.

          Vai o tatu escamoso encontrar-me onde estou escondendo? Lembro-me do caminho de ouro, uma pinga de mel, meu amado Parati

          by tarkangi on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:55:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  i never knew that about Newton. (0+ / 0-)

        That he extrapolated from "grind lens" to "make the scratches smaller" to "corpuscular light."  That was world-class brilliant, as with much of what he came up with.

        Re. entanglement: experiments have been done where the two ends of the "circuit" were far enough away that the measurements supported the conclusion of instantaneous correlation between the observables.  This has been done enough times with enough safeguards, that we can reasonably assume the results are correct.

        Whether that case obtains for the present research, remains to be seen.  But they are going to do additional runs with the devices separated by a large enough distance to overcome measurement error, and then we'll see what happens.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:47:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Information transmission cannot exceed C (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, petral

          All of the reporting on this entanglement experiment state that information was instantly transmitted, but I have been told repeatedly that, although entanglement acts on each of the particles instantaneously, information still cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light and that in the experiment, the information transfer actually occurred at a speed less than that of light.  
          I do not understand why entanglement could not be used for full-duplex, instantaneous  information transfer in, say, a deep space communication system. If you had two pairs of entangled particles, shouldn't you be able to measure the spin on each of the particles no matter how far apart the entangled pairs are? If you can measure that spin, then why wouldn't you be able to use each of the entangled pairs to relay binary numbers in two one-way serial channels? Information isn't a physical "thing" that covers a distance in space-time. Why does it supposedly violate relativity to transmit information instantly? It seems like measuring the spin of entangled particles at all would always violate relativity if that were the case.

          +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

          by cybersaur on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:29:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A few gigs of 'frozen' photon (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            spiritplumber

            pairs (they're doing that now!) could perhaps be put into an array at the heart of a stellar distance communicator. The 'home' device stays at its origin point, the other goes on the ship with the colonists to planet Bob.

            Trick would be to be able to 'encode' a message with your device by actually imposing spin-states on the photons rather than simply measuring them. Collapse of wavefunction occurs deliberately at the sending station, that must instaneously collapse the wavefunctions in the receiving station's entangled twins.

            Of course you'd have to be able to detect wavefunction collapse at the receiving end and 'read' the resulting spin-states.

            There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

            by Joieau on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:49:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  There Is No Deity Save ERIS! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tarkangi
      got his prize for validating the branch of science he fought for the rest of his career.

      So in one sense this is proving him right, in the process jerking him around one more time.

      The only one still jerking Einstein around is (and always was) Einstein himself.
      God Not Only Plays Dice -- He's an Epic Prankster.
      She's an Epic Prankster.

      And Her Name is Eris.

      ;-)

      "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

      by thanatokephaloides on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:14:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I saw what you did there (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thanatokephaloides

        Fnord.

        Vai o tatu escamoso encontrar-me onde estou escondendo? Lembro-me do caminho de ouro, uma pinga de mel, meu amado Parati

        by tarkangi on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:58:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Today is Friday. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tarkangi

          Don't forget to eat a hot dog.

          With a bun!

          ;-)

          "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

          by thanatokephaloides on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 12:57:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Literary Theory (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thanatokephaloides

            Borges has a story about a man struggling to write the DonQuixote, not as plagiarism but out of his own experience.  Do the same words have the same meanings in the two cases?

            By the same token, if you get the Principia over the internet do you get the same magic as if you were slipped the little yellow pamphlet from your room mate's cousin at the Cambridge School of Weston?

            I am reminded of a comedian and his schtick about how the internet is producing a generation of wussies:  when we were boys, if you wanted porn you had to go to the liquor store and steal it yourself.

            Vai o tatu escamoso encontrar-me onde estou escondendo? Lembro-me do caminho de ouro, uma pinga de mel, meu amado Parati

            by tarkangi on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 01:35:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The answer to your question: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tarkangi
              Borges has a story about a man struggling to write the DonQuixote, not as plagiarism but out of his own experience.  Do the same words have the same meanings in the two cases?
              Probably; but in this case you never know.
              By the same token, if you get the Principia over the internet do you get the same magic as if you were slipped the little yellow pamphlet from your room mate's cousin at the Cambridge School of Weston?
              Definitely.

              The difference between the two cases is this: Don Quixote, Cervantes, and Borges' struggling author are ordinary living things, with a single location in space-time.

              On the other hand, Eris, as the force of Primordial Creative Chaos, is omnipresent. And, since the Principia Discordia is Her inspiration, It is also omnipresent to a certain extent. The fact that we can obtain the Principia over the internet today is obviously Her Will.

              And it is marvelous in our eyes.

              ;-)

              (OK, so I answered a question on literary theory with Discordian Thealogy. But what did you expect? Salve Discordia and eat a hot dog with a bun on Friday!)

              ;-)

              "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

              by thanatokephaloides on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 12:45:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I bow before your superiour wisdom (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                thanatokephaloides

                You have snatched Lucky Cricket from my hand.

                Vai o tatu escamoso encontrar-me onde estou escondendo? Lembro-me do caminho de ouro, uma pinga de mel, meu amado Parati

                by tarkangi on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 02:45:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's just what my Pineal Gland tells me! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tarkangi
                  I bow before your superiour wisdom. You have snatched Lucky Cricket from my hand.
                  " For further information, consult your pineal gland."
                       -- The Principia Discordia

                  ;-)

                  "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

                  by thanatokephaloides on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 03:34:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  One problem with the author's questions (4+ / 0-)

      "If Einstein is wrong about this, what else was he wrong about?"

      Logical fallacy.

      Second, tied to the later fallacy:
      "One question:  Who's going to hand out the speeding infraction tickets, each time this 186K Einstein Speed Limit gets broken?"

      Changing the spin of an electron did not move mass at superluminal velocities. Information moved ad apparent superluminal velocities.
      As an example, the universe expanded at many times the velocity of light after the big bang. Matter was forced to creep along at a much lower velocity. Why?
      E=M/(√m^2*c^2)-M.
      No data or theories suggest that mass increase with velocity wasn't the same since the big bang until now.

    •  FTL travel would be neat. But it is a LONG LONG (0+ / 0-)

      way from the facts reported here.

  •  Ansible (35+ / 0-)

    If you can spin a particle here and detect it there, instantaneously, you could have instantaneous communication between the two points.

    1. Books are for use.

    by looty on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:27:01 PM PDT

    •  I wonder (13+ / 0-)

      what they're watching,

      over on Alpha-Centauri?


      Sooner or later were going to have to: Trade in those Carbon Footprints ...

      by jamess on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:30:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes, but... (and it's a very big BUT)... (14+ / 0-)

      The only information you can send that fast is random information not created by you.

      Information seems to be sent, but it's nothing you can use to send a message with.

      •  <- THIS (22+ / 0-)

        Everyone is blindly jumping on this as an information transmission scheme. It's not. It's more like, you've got a random number generator on your wall, and when you push a button, it locks itself into the same random number as a different generator on the wall of someone a billion miles away, so when they push the button, they'll get the same number as you. It's neat, but it's not a way to send data, you're not choosing what it locks into, only when it locks into a value, and even on that front, the other side has no way to know whether you locked into it when you hit the button or whether they did. It's not totally meaningless, mind you - for example, while it's not "faster than light communications", it does have applications for quantum cryptography and the like.

        Unfortunately, the laws of physics seem quite stuck on that simple rule... you can't send information faster than the speed of light.  :Þ

        The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

        by Rei on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:26:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a way to send data. (6+ / 0-)

          The way you've described it, anyway.

          You alternate the intervals between "locking" the value.  A one msec interval is a 0, a two msec interval is a 1.  Done.

          If that were the only issue (I'm guessing it isn't) that objection is trivial, like saying telegraphy only transmits voltage levels not information.

          •  Unfortunately no. (21+ / 0-)

            Measuring the spin of the particle at location "A" doesn't cause the particle at location "B" to emit some signal that says "my entangled partner has been read!" If the people at B want to know their particle's spin, they still have to measure it. And when they do, there's nothing that indicates whether the waveform had collapsed because the people at B measured the spin first or if the people at A had measured the spin first.

          •  As I just wrote: (11+ / 0-)

            [quote]. It's neat, but it's not a way to send data, you're not choosing what it locks into, only when it locks into a value, and [b]even on that front, the other side has no way to know whether you locked into it when you hit the button or whether they did.[/b][/quote]

            This is well studied - there is no way to send information faster than the speed of light via quantum teleportation.

            The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

            by Rei on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:02:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, I wouldn't write it off (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              thanatokephaloides

              completely. Sure, you might have to create, isolate and suspend a few bazillion particle pairs before the colony ship leaves earth, to travel with them to the outpost.

              The two sets of twinned particles being suspended in some kind of manipulator that looks a little like a cell phone and has a slide-out keyboard. When one wishes to communicate with the colonists (wherever they are at or in between stations), you type in the message, which 'measures' a set of your particles per whatever code you're using, and it comes out on the screen of the twins' device as text. Which takes longer to display, see and read (much less respond to) than it took in transit - which was instantaneous. Next time you need to use the same particles for another message, the device simply measures a different parameter. Which is also instantaneously transmitted to the twins in the other device.

              So long as the twin particles are maintained in suspension at both ends, you can measure and re-measure any asppect of any of them at any time, the twins at the other ends will flip accordingly. Instantaneously. Cosmic cell phone [text only] service!

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:41:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As stated... (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mr Robert, pico, infotech, G2geek, JMcDonald

                It doesn't work that way. When you measure a particle, it comes out as a random value, and the other side has no way to tell if they're the ones measuring or you. To each side, it just looks like measuring random data values. There is absolutely no way to transmit information via it.

                The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                by Rei on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:55:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you measure spin (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roger Fox

                  in your particle, then spin is what reflects on the other end in the twin particle. If a value should happen to 'flip' due to the measurement at one end, that could probably be registered by some means. Even if some of the group don't 'flip' (because no parameter in that particle in the sequence changes when the code is sent - i.e., it's already a zero or one), if any number of the group are registered as flipping it means a message is being sent.

                  Unless you're saying there is no entangled 'connection' to the twinned particles, and they're just randomly flipping and flopping on their own good time. In which case we wouldn't be talking about entanglement, would we?

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:38:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  *sigh* (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    G2geek, JMcDonald
                    If a value should happen to 'flip' due to the measurement at one end, that could probably be registered by some means.
                    No. You can't just say 'tell me when you flip'.

                    With a normal (non-entangled) particle, when you make a measurement, the particle's spin is determined. Before you make the measurement, the particle's spin is indeterminate. Think cat-in-a-box indeterminate.

                    With an entangled particle, when you make a measurement of yours OR I make a measurement of mine, your particle's spin is determined. Then you have to measure it. If you measure it as being 1, does that mean that I have already made a measurement? No. It could just mean that you made your measurement, and that's what it came up with.

                •  Thank you Rei (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek

                  I have been waiting for someone to bring a more rational explanation of the result. Your explanation was lucid and well done.

                •  the analogy I use is... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  linkage, JMcDonald

                  Cryptography using a one-time key that is physically random, where the key is binary-added to the ciphertext via XOR.

                  The recipient gets the ciphertext in instantaneous speed.  However the ciphertext can't be read without the key.  And the key is delivered at sub-luminal speed.

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:07:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly: not a communications technique (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek, JMcDonald

            "Everyone is blindly jumping on this as an information transmission scheme. It's not."

            Yeah.  The way I would put it is that there's a difference between suddenly learning something about a remote location and being able to instantaneously send information to a remote location.

            •  the NYT article mis-used the word "information." (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              linkage

              I think that's what got the ball rolling here.

              None the less, fun to speculate and also it does tend to get people's interest up.

              We got the future back. Uh-oh.

              by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:09:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it IS information, it's just not a signal (0+ / 0-)

                That's a subtle, but crucial, distinction.

                See G2geek's crypto analogy above.

                In effect, you can send cipher-text (which is information) instantaneously, but you need to use sub-luminal means to send the key that lets the other side decode it. That's when they get a signal from you.

        •  Excellent description, REI n/t (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP, NYFM, marsanges, docmidwest, Matt Z, Mr Robert
        •  So Far (4+ / 0-)

          Until recent mathematics was implemented in experiment, even transmitting "random" numbers was impossible. Now it's practice.

          "Random" means "unpredicted", "currently" unpredictable. It's possible that they will remain unpredicted, their meaning unknowable, forever - or at least indefinitely. But it also seems possible that another breakthrough (or steady evolution) will find a way to decipher the "random" into "message".

          For example, in related work some scientists are unraveling Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Partial measurements of each side of what was once a choice between info about a quantum's position or its momentum are allowing the sum to total more than Uncertainty once (said was) allowed.

          These extraordinary efforts suggest practical applications for faster than light communications. And thereby even more fantastic transcendence of our familiar reality.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:21:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're proposing new laws of physics (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr Robert, G2geek, JMcDonald

            without any evidence. That generally doesn't fly. What's your evidence for a non-random nature to the particle wave function? And even if that was true, even a pseudo-random, predictable wave function read still wouldn't let you send information, because you're still just reading data, and have no way for either end to know whether they're the ones that caused the collapse or just read the result of it.

            The concept of faster-than-light communication runs against all available evidence. The fact that our investigations into even "spooky instant action at a distance" still upholds the inability to send information faster than the speed of light just piles on more evidence that it's part of the fundamental nature of the universe (there's a damned lot of other reasons why, but it'd take too long to get into here).

            Not everything that you may want to be possible is.

            The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

            by Rei on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:03:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No I'm Not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek

              I'm proposing that our understanding of the limits of physics are changing at a pretty solid rate. I'm not proposing any new understanding of it. I'm talking only about the nature of breakthrus.

              And I'm not just saying "anything's possible". This experiment proves that instantaneous transmission of random states is possible, which previously (as per Einstein's gut and deadend work) was said not to be possible. I also cited some undermining of an absolute exclusion according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that recent work is delivering.

              So what I explained, in some detail, was that there's reason to hope - not just a desire to hope, or even a reason to believe - that FTL comms might yet be innovated by us someday.

              I am not dogmatic about science and its limits. I also do not make up physics and assert it as fact unless I have verified what I've made up.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:04:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Einstein's gut is not the cornerstone of modern (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JMcDonald

                peer-reviewed science on physics, believe it or not. That's not how science works. The fact is, there's a massive body of evidence from tons of different lines that shows an absolute speed limit of C for the transmission of information. If you're going to invoke the violation of C, you have to make the whole laws to the universe so pointlessly convoluted that you might as well invoke a theory that the Earth revolves around the sun because it's pushed by giant invisible bunny rabbits.

                Your whole argument basically boils down to, "but scientists have been wrong about things before." Well, duh. But that hardly means science is going to be wrong about a particular thing in precisely the manner you want just because you want that to be the case. The reality is that most of the refinements of science are just that, refinements. Example: while Newtonian physics was superceded by relativity and quantum physics, it still holds up under the conditions it was defined under. We've discovered how particles have indefinite positions and can tunnel past potential barriers, but that doesn't mean an elephant is just going to appear on the other side of his cage now that we know about quantum physics. We've discovered that dark energy is tearing the universe apart at an ever-accelerating rate. But that doesn't mean that your cup of coffee is going to explode and take out five city blocks.

                And even in the cases where science has been outright wrong, these have been exceedingly rare events. Pick a  peer-reviewed research paper at random from the first half of the 20th century. I'd gladly bet on hundreds to 1 odds that its conclusions are still upheld today a century later.

                But back to basics: you're proposing a violation of the well-established laws of physics which have been confirmed from countless different lines and which make all of the equations pointlessly complex and would mean that ridiculous, patently obvious consequences that never happen should be happening all the time.. And what's your evidence to propose this hypothesis? Because you want it to be true.

                The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                by Rei on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:49:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not Einstein's Gut (0+ / 0-)

                  Again, I didn't say that FTL now seems more possible because of Einstein's gut. I said it now seems more possible because the limit is being undermined by modern research results that previously seemed impossible. I'm talking about how scientific innovation and paradigm shifts work.

                  If you're not going to read my posts, or be honest about what's in them, I'm not going to reply to your projected straw men.

                  Too bad for you, because I have some other work I could point to as possible example of how FTL could fit into the Newtonian/Einsteinian/Bohrian framework but revolutionize it with new techniques, just as Einstein did to Newton/Maxwell's framework. That's worth discussing, not your insistence on repeating fallacies to argue with me.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:38:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  To put it another way... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                linkage, JMcDonald

                the reality could be even worse then what you want. And in fact, as we've learned more, that's actually become the case. The discovery of dark energy has made reaching distant galaxies even more difficult than it previously would have seemed just under general relativity. In fact, most galaxies in the universe are now known to be physically unreachable due to dark energy. We can see them but we can never go there.

                The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                by Rei on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:52:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  As soon as it's anything less the utterly random (0+ / 0-)

              yeah, you CAN know if you caused them to collapse that way or they were sent.

              Imagine a program that could either generate a random set of bits OR grab a designed set put in a remote location and then tries to open them as an image.

              Think I'll be able to tell each and every time the program grabs a remote set rather than generating its own?

              •  Actually, I'm not entirely sure this can't be done (0+ / 0-)

                with pure random.

                One side constantly measures until the random forms the message they want then stops.

                The other side measures and holy shit is that a very cogent message for what should be a random data set!

          •  Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JMcDonald

            ...was never intended to be a law, and it isn't part of modern quantum mechanics. It's a rough guide to how to describe the universe of tiny things.

            For your theory to be true, we would have to rewrite all of contemporary physics in a much more revolutionary way than literally any new theory in the last 500 years. It would prove most of both quantum theory and relativity completely wrong, and, worse, irrelevant. (I.e., we wouldn't just have to modify them, we would have to entirely throw them out and start over.) And we literally have nothing coherent to replace them that matches observations. Nothing.

            Sure, there's a chance that we'll find what you say. But I would guess, just a rule of thumb guess from a former physics major in college, that it is more likely that the human race will go extinct in the next six months than that any such discovery will be made in the next thousand years.

        •  nice analogy. (0+ / 0-)

          "You press a button and your RNG locks onto another RNG a gazillion miles away."  Nice, excellent in fact.

          I've been taking care to point out that there is as yet no evidence that this translates to "the ansible," and the scientific consensus is that "ansibles" are precluded by Einsteinian relativity.  

          Though of course it's fun to speculate, as long as we keep the speculations separated from assertions about the implications of the present experiment.

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:04:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  yes, so far, see also my comments below. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, wader, Deep Texan, linkage

        The analogy I use for entanglement experiments to date is "Ciphertext produced by a one-time key XORed with the cleartext.  You receive the ciphertext instantaneously, but you receive the decryption key via postal mail."

        I'm excited but highly skeptical about the present experiment providing any way to beat that.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:08:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My analogy is pairs of socks (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DocGonzo, G2geek

          clipped together. Each pair in the drawer is a different color. You close your eyes, take out a pair, split it into two envelopes, and take one envelope to the nearest Starbucks you're not in. Your partner at home opens the envelope and instantaneously knows the color of your sock without looking in your envelope.

        •  Instantaneous Key Distribution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek

          A simultaneous synchronized distributed random number generator sounds like an excellent way to distribute the one-time key pad for XORing with cleartext messages. Even if we send the messages at c, instantaneously distributing more keys faster than sending the encrypted messages is a big help once defied by physics. Especially since the distribution is highly secure (or at least makes eavesdropping or middlemanning clearly evident).

          And then we're distributing a dataset (random pad) faster than light. Sounds like we're over the watershed of FTL comms. The kind of foundation for evading the c limit on the encrypted messages that could bear fruit, once we're actually studying machines that work this way. All datasets seem random until the decoding pattern is known, and new physics is no different from any other decoding pattern.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:27:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it would be, except... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JMcDonald

            ....if it was possible to deliver one-time key that way, it would also be possible to deliver cleartext that way, which would get us "the ansible" in a slightly different form.

            Which is precluded in the current scientific consensus.

            However, quantum crypto could be built using one-time keys and XOR, because it secures the delivery of the key.  This doesn't beat c, it only provides "tamper notification" if an adverse party intercepts the key transmission.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:19:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Still Seems Possible (0+ / 0-)

              What I don't get about how this experiment doesn't provide FTL comms:

              I run the experiment. At Noon UTC I change the spin of quantum A; distantly you see the spin of quantum B change. Instantaneously. At 12:01PM UTC I don't change the spin; distantly you see the spin hasn't changed.

              Haven't I just sent you a pair of pulses (1, 0)?

              If you can't distinguish the pulses, how do you know the spin has changed?

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:53:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Thats why I prefer the graviton ansible (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:09:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  excellent; instant meme, can I use it? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox

          To a telephony geek, it's a multiple pun along the lines of the difference between Bell's dynamic transmitter and Edison's carbon transmitter.

          So now we have three types of ansibles:  The LeGuin ansible (we don't need to specify how this works), the photon ansible, and the graviton ansible.   All of which are pure fiction at the moment, but could make for some merry fun in a fictional story about attempts to communicate with ET.

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:23:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But what if...? (0+ / 0-)

        If you control the spin on one end and measure the spin on the other end, with 0's being counter-clockwise and 1's being clockwise, why couldn't you transmit ordered information?

        +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

        by cybersaur on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:44:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  if pigs had wings... (0+ / 0-)

          The setup you are suggesting is impossible.   You don't get to control the spin -- it is selected randomly by the universe, beyond your control.  What you can do is decide how to measure:  left/right or up/down, etc.  (You only get one such choice per entangled pair.)

          Ditto at the other end.

          If they make the same choice of how to measure (left/right, up/down, etc.), the random number you see will be exactly correlated with the random number they see, but it will still be a random value for each of you.

          If they make a different choice of what to measure, your value and theirs will be uncorrelated and random with respect to each other.

          The magic is that each of you can wait to the very last nano-second before deciding which measurement you'll make, and yet the answers will still come out correlated if you happen to agree and uncorrelated if you happen to not agree.  

    •  the Ansible: whoa there!, not so fast... (17+ / 0-)

      For those who don't recognize the term, "the Ansible" is the name given by science fiction author Ursula LeGuin to a fictional device that enables instantaneous communication across any distance.  In other words, it lets you make a phone call across the galaxy and talk in realtime.

      The consensus in quantum physics is that the experiments to date do not (not, not, not) provide a basis for the Ansible.  The present experiment may offer a different conclusion, but it is too soon to jump to any conclusions until the experiment is replicated with the same results.  As follows:

      One of the most-often-repeated experiments uses the polarization of photons to demonstrate entanglement.  You create an entangled photon pair, and you put one photon through a polarizer so it come out either vertically or horizontally polarized.  Then you measure the polarization of the other photon, and find that it is always correlated with the polarization of the first photon.  In other words, affecting one photon in the pair, instantaneously affects the other.  

      However, if all you are observing is the polarization of the second photon, you do not know if what you observe is the result of the first photon's natural polarization as it occurred when the photon was generated, or if what you observe is the result of having put the first photon through a polarizer.  

      Long story short, the best analogy for this is:  You receive a ciphertext, but you don't know what the original message was until you receive the decryption key.  The ciphertext is transmitted instantaneously, faster than light speed.  But the decryption key is transmitted at sub-light speed, for example it's sent to you by postal mail.  

      So far nobody has managed to find a way around that.

      Personally, I have always believed that it will be possible to find a way around that, and use it to transmit the actual information at instantaneous speed: no waiting for a decryption key in the postal mail.  The way I've thought this would be done, is via massive redundancy of the system: many many photon pairs at the same time, mutually linked in the manner of an error-correcting code.

      By analogy, it's easier to remember words to a song than it is to remember an equal quantity of plain prose, because the redundancy embedded in the melody and rhythm is an aid to memory.  

      But let's make clear: I am not a physicist, I do not have a solid basis in physics to support my belief that it will be possible to use entanglement for communication, and the basis I actually have for it would be highly disputed at best.  

      So in summary:  I believe it "should" become possible, but the experiments to date say it is not possible.

      Now along comes the present experiment.  

      The New York Times article refers to "transmitting information," but from my read of it, it is not precise with definitions, so it may be mis-using the term "information" to mean something more than what the experiment demonstrates.  

      In short we have to take this with skepticism and not jump to pleasant but premature conclusions about Ansibles.

      I think it is more likely that the present experiment further supports the existing scientific consensus that says Ansibles are not possible, and it does not support the conclusion that Ansibles are possible.

      I may be wrong, and it may be that the present experiment really does transmit information reliably.  If that's the case, then yes the Ansible is virtually around the corner.  About which more in my next comment.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:43:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't aware (5+ / 0-)

        That Ursula came up with that. I do recall it in the second Ender Book (Orson Scott Card), Speaker of the Dead, and the ansible gave rise to a sentient being.  (Btw,, I do not read him anymore, (before someone flames me)).

        Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato

        by marko on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:46:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She named it (6+ / 0-)

          The idea had been around for a while before that (such as in James Blish's "Dirac communicator", mentioned in another comment).

          The thing about quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity. ~Abraham Lincoln

          by raboof on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:52:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  here: (9+ / 0-)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          "The word ansible was coined by Ursula K. Le Guin in her 1966 novel Rocannon's World.[1] Le Guin states that she derived the name from "answerable," as the device would allow its users to receive answers to their messages in a reasonable amount of time, even over interstellar distances.[2] Her award-winning 1974 novel The Dispossessed,[3] a book in the Hainish Cycle, tells of the invention of the ansible."

          ....

          "Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game series uses the ansible as a plot device. "The official name is Philotic Parallax Instantaneous Communicator," explains Colonel Graff in Ender's Game, "but somebody dredged the name ansible out of an old book somewhere."[4]"

          ----

          Yes we all know LeGuin is cool and Card is a creep, and his dismissing LeGuin's writing as "an old book somewhere" is kind of snotty, or perhaps the two of them are friends despite their political differences.  Anyway, the above is probably definitive, despite the usual problems of Wikipedia.

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:53:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To be fair to that reference (5+ / 0-)

            Ender's Game takes place at least a thousand years in the future IIRC.  I would think it's probably a compliment to anyone's work to assume that it will be referenced thousands of years into the future, even as "an old book somewhere."

             (Not intended as a defense of Card himself)

            •  yes, I also thought it was cool (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, highacidity

              that Card at least credited LeGuin in a backhanded way

              Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
              DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
              Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

              by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 07:55:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  probably he also had to get permission... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                highacidity, Matt Z

                ... otherwise it's plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation to lift something that's obviously identifiable from someone else's work.  

                I'm inclined to think they had a pleasant-enough conversation about it and then directed their publishers accordingly, and Card used that language "some old book" with LeGuin's knowledge and she was OK with it.  This only because people can have pleasant professional relationships despite being at odds politically.  

                See also how lawyers behave in court, where the defense & the prosecution know each other from previous encounters, and exhibit a kind of professional courtesy that occasionally includes friendly remarks and occasionally includes sarcastic remarks. Each is still ferociously trying to make their case, but they know they'll see each other frequently, which (per game theory) motivates them to treat each other decently.

                Card is still a nasty right-wing bigot, but perhaps some day he'll change.

                We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:16:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  There has been significant progress (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        in the last few years with 'freezing' of photons in crystalline structures (part of the quest for quantum computation). As I mentioned above, if you've enough of them and have them in a device that can impose polarization to any single or group of photons at your whim (even as a binary or trinary code that comes out as displayed text), instantaneous interstellar texting could be a real deal. It's just the hardware that has to travel slowly, as the entangled pairs would have to be generated and isolated on one end at the same time, one then transported to the far away space colony at sub-light speed.

        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

        by Joieau on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:50:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  what Ansibles are good for: (10+ / 0-)

      If you haven't read my preceding comment, the summary is that we should be highly skeptical of claims that support the conclusion that entanglement makes instantaneous communication possible.

      Any such claims need to be further tested by replicating the present experiment many times in many labs.  If the replications support instantaneous communication, that would be an ENORMOUS breakthrough, and it would also be one hell of a paradigm-crasher for the current scientific consensus about entanglement.  In fact it would be a paradigm-crasher for a very large chunk of present physics that goes into the Standard Model.  That is a big deal.  It's huge.  

      When you see something that looks like a major breakthrough and also looks like it breaks existing scientific consensus, you have to be really careful and skeptical, and wait for replications before you conclude that it's correct.

      That said, IF the Ansible becomes possible, then....

      = At present we have to put up with nasty communication lags to our objects in space.  Communication with our robotic explorers on Mars takes about 90 minutes.  That's the lag caused by the speed of light, or what I refer to as "c-lag" ("c" stands for "the constant," which is physics shorthand for "the speed of light").

      = The Ansible would enable us to operate our devices on Mars with instant communication, so we could move them more quickly over the surface, manipulate objects in real time, and perform experiments on Mars more quickly.

      = The Ansible would do away with c-lag on radio communication with astronauts on the Moon, Mars, and exploring the outer planets.

      = The Ansible will give us a huge advantage in remotely-operating robotic devices sent to look for life on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

      = If/when we become an interplanetary and then interstellar civilization, the Ansible will enable us to exchange information as easily as we do on Earth, knitting that cosmic civilization into a culturally and economically coherent whole.  

      Now for some wild speculation.

      The following is not, not, not supported by existing science.  It's my layman's speculation and that only.

      = If advanced civilizations exist elsewhere in our galaxy, and they are interstellar, they would almost certainly have discovered the Ansible on their own, and they will be using it.

      = Now we'll find out why SETI hasn't found ET yet: because ET is using the Ansible.  When we have it, we'll find them.  We will probably find a decent number of them.

      = The knowledge gained by understanding how the Ansible works, will also shed light on some pesky puzzles in neuroscience about neural computation: in other words, about one of the ingredients in the question of how brains work.  

      I should probably turn these comments into a separate diary but I don't have time right now.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:59:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Another thing the ansible would do: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, Matt Z

        allow us to prevent a crash after it happens. That is, if it works the same in all frames of reference.

        This is why I'm extremely skeptical. I like causality.

        warning: snark probably above

        by NE2 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:06:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so do i except that retrocausality is also real. (4+ / 0-)

          I have the references around here somewhere, and apparently it's been demonstrated that retrocausal effects occur, and the results are robust.

          It's already mundanely true that kinetic equations are time-reversible, even in classical mechanics.  That by itself doesn't prove retrocausality, but it's interesting.

          I'm inclined to think that time is a property of (or is a vector in) thermodynamic systems, and not a property of (or is a scalar in) pure kinetic systems.

          As for preventing a crash, I would suggest:

          You could send information backward through time to alert the driver or pilot.  But whether the information could reliably get through, or whether the person would act on it, or whether the action would avert the crash: each of these would be uncertain with equal probability of Yes and No.  

          To complicate matters further I also believe that "hard determinism" is unfalsifiable and supernatural.  The premise of hard determinism is that if you know all the facts + the all laws, you can calculate all the outcomes.  The problem is, knowing all the facts + all the laws requires a computing engine that stands above the facts, which by definition is a supernatural (above or outside of nature) entity.  No thanks.  

          Minus hard determinism, and plus indeterminacy as shown with numerous experiments, you also get free will: the brain is a physical system that should also be affected by indeterminacy, multiplied from the level of computation within the neurons, up to the level of cognition.  See also Penrose & Hameroff (who are also hated by the hard determinists & Singularitarians).  (BTW "The Singularity" is also supernaturalism, "no thanks" to that as well.)

          It used to be said that the universe was like a machine.  Then it was said that the universe was more like a thought.  The more we learn, it's starting to look as if the universe is more like a dream;-)

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 07:06:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I should also add: skepticism != cynicism. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, highacidity, Matt Z

        Being skeptical about the present claimed results, does not mean assuming that the scientists are lying or making preposterous noises or whatever.

        Remember the flap a few years ago about whether physicists at CERN had a result showing that some photons or electrons were moving faster than light speed?   What they did was publish a paper saying "we think we made a mistake, but this is what we have, please help us find the error."  Eventually it turned out to be a bad network cable (of all things;-).  

        Scientists can make un-obvious errors, measurements can go wrong for innocent reasons, scientists can mis-interpret findings, etc.  And of course the science press and the lay press can jump to un-justified conclusions and go into hype overdrive.

        It's reasonable to assume that the folks who did this research are reporting honestly and cautiously about what they found.  

        The place for skepticism is only in the fact that if what's been reported in the lay press is correct, the finding breaks long-established theory.  That is not the same thing as saying the scientists did anything wrong or morally culpable.  It's just saying "according to what we know, this can't be correct, but if it is correct, it's enormously important."  

        So what we do then, is avoid jumping to conclusions, and we wait for more results.  Patience & mindfulness, the same attitudes that meditation seeks to cultivate.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:13:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  thanks Ender, now go win the war (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 07:47:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  David Weber wrote about that in his (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      Honor Harrington series, but his ansibles were based on gravitons. Orson Scott Cards protagonist, Ender, used an ansible to communicate to his fleet.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:03:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just for the record... (0+ / 0-)

      ...entanglement effects cannot be used to transmit information, though a simple description makes it seem that they could. The misconception that they can transmit information faster than light arises again and again, year after year. It’s just wrong.

      Entanglement results in patterns of measurement outcomes that look random at both ends, but have peculiar statistical correlations that become visible only after information about the separate events is collected and compared.

      Entanglement is subtle, and its effects are exactly what quantum mechanics has described (and experiments have confirmed) for many decades now. There’s nothing about it that is inconsistent with relativity, because relativity is built into the mathematics at its foundation.

      •  a nit ... (0+ / 0-)

        The experiments do seem to transmit information, but not a signal.  

        The confusion arises from thinking these are synonymous.

        The information being transmitted FTL is chosen by the universe at random beyond your control, so there is no way to turn that into a signal.   Nothing either side can do will affect the random pattern seen at the other end (hence no signal), and yet somehow the information in those patterns is correlated, apparently via FTL "spooky action".

  •  Thank you for sharing this with us! n/t (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Lujane, defluxion10, TomP, Matt Z

    "Courage is what is takes to stand up and speak, courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. - Winston Churchill -7.2, -7.9

    by helpImdrowning on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:43:01 PM PDT

  •  Old news. Does not transmit info faster than c (29+ / 0-)

    Violations of Bell's Inequalities, showing the breakdown of non-conspiratorial local realism, have been well known for about 25 years. Yes, people are very close to simultaneously closing all the possible loopholes now, but no-one has taken those loopholes seriously for some time anyway. Local realism is dead.

    More importantly, these spooky correlations do not provide any way to transmit information faster than c. Despite what the press often says, they are thus compatible with special relativity.

    But still very spooky.

    Michael Weissman UID 197542

    by docmidwest on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:48:39 PM PDT

    •  well (6+ / 0-)

      you must be a hoot

      to have at the college-kegger.


      thanks for the link, docmidwest,

      but I'm keeping my inter-stellar radio ears,

      pealed.  


      (just in case ... the universe is not flat.)


      Sooner or later were going to have to: Trade in those Carbon Footprints ...

      by jamess on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:53:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

      by River Rover on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:31:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Local realism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, G2geek

      This old man is simply going to have to take that on faith.

      It isn't a religion. It isn't that kind of faith. I just have to admit that it's time for me to leave some things to the young whippersnappers.

      I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

      by Just Bob on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:33:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Simultaneity happens in labs all the time. (7+ / 0-)

      For example, researchers around ghe world may spend decades trying to crystalize a certain gas -- and then, suddenly, they all make the breakthrough on the same day. And, form that moment forward, it's always easy to crystalize that gas. Like it learned how to do it.

      (And then everyone spends the next 20 years bitching about who got there first.)

      Perfect cold fusion will probably come down that way, as well.

      Chinese research labs are working on harnessing beliefs to alter physical realities in real time without physical intervention. For example, in the field of medicine, no less. But then, that's always how healers worked.


      ___________
      My Latest: Bowe Bergdahl : The Long Road Home. Evolved Human Consciousness in Action.

      by Pluto on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:35:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those Chinese labs (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, G2geek

        need to hire some economists. They have mastered the art of converting raw belief into physical reality (as long as the belief comports with the interests of their owners).

      •  Crystalize (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, Pluto

        Do you have links describing the sudden ease of crystalizing a gas after it's first achieved, other than by the distribution of the technique and technology for doing it?

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:31:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. I really don't. (0+ / 0-)

          But I didn't make it up. I keep a notebook on simultaneity in global ideas. Think DNA discovery.

          The business about things suddenly crystalizing, when they stubbornly refused to for decades, is from a different idea. Theoretical physics about matter learning, and even performing for the observer's desires. Various proofs. Goes back to Bell.

          Also, there's the "if you can dream it you can do it" factor in technology emergence. Stuff that comes into existence from decades-old science fiction that folks believe actually does exist. Then poof; it unfolds.

          And back to physics about consciousness creating reality, which has been around since the Sufis figured it out.


          ___________
          My Latest: Bowe Bergdahl : The Long Road Home. Evolved Human Consciousness in Action.

          by Pluto on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:25:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That is the standard answer (6+ / 0-)

      but these Delft guys are claiming to make post-entanglement modifications in spin that are reflected instantaneously... i.e. real information transmission.  That's why I'm still skeptical. It is true that the usual 'spooky entanglement stories' are just a goofy novelty for cocktail parties, like fitting a 20ft beam in a 10ft shed using length contraction, or the twin 'paradox'...

    •  perhaps not quite dead... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, G2geek, docmidwest, Matt Z

      In order to know that the separated measurements were in fact correlated, one must communicate the results (at light or sub-light speed) back to a common location for comparison.  This is sort of a dual problem to the possible communication loophole involved in setting up the experiment.

      If you compress all the paradox resolutions into something that happens at the final comparison event, then everything has occurred locally.  We just need to ensure that we never get past an event that combines incoherent communicated results.

      But of course that trades one mystery for another.  

      In a multi-worlds model, that mystery would ask why worlds with disagreeing results don't survive such comparisons.  

      Alternatively, perhaps entanglement is the underlying reality that creates space-time in the first place, and the comparison is just a reflection of how that plays out.  (I agree, that borders on incoherence, but it's such a nebulous notion I have trouble clarifying it more.)

      But it's been 40 years since I looked at this, and I haven't really followed the literature in that time, so maybe my intuitions are all wet...

    •  Strikes me that what is being relegated to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chakadog

      insignificance is human intention. We communicate but it's not what we intend to communicate that counts. And intention is super important to some people, even when they intentionally deny it.
      "I mean" is more  important to some people than anything.

      If we are partnered by quanta, then we're not the center of the universe.

      Can there be being, if we're a part?

      http://hannah.smith-family.com

      by hannah on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:24:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand everything you're saying here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      (Rei's comment a few up is clearer) but recced for pushing against quantum woo.

      warning: snark probably above

      by NE2 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:44:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but quantum woo is fun;-) (0+ / 0-)

        Seriously though, as long as one is careful to demarcate between "this part is the consensus of current science" and "this part is not" and "this part is wild fringe" and "this part is science fiction," there's no harm in going wild blue sky.

        One just has to be careful & safe about it.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:39:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  now if only people would be equally skeptical... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NE2

        ... about The Singularity and other exercises in supernaturalism wrapped up in computers to make them look scientific, we'd be making progress.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:40:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  another Einstein quote.. (20+ / 0-)
    “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
    ― Albert Einstein

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:51:48 PM PDT

    •  could be expanded to: (7+ / 0-)


      human cruelty,

      human stubbornness,

      human fear of progress.

      etc, etc.


      Sooner or later were going to have to: Trade in those Carbon Footprints ...

      by jamess on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:58:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  similar version of that quote (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      crystal eyes, Matt Z, G2geek

      Q:  What's the difference between genius and stupidity?

      A:  Genius has limits

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 07:58:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  imagine this and then observe it: (0+ / 0-)

      Imagine that you're Einstein or Hawking or someone of that degree of intelligence and insight.  You've looked deeply into the nature of things and you understand the universe in ways that most people can't even begin to grasp.

      Then you look around and see that most humans are still thoroughly addicted to various forms of emotional drama, instinct, desire to dominate others, etc.  

      Yes that would be good cause for despair, and/or for the burning desire to help humanity to evolve in such a manner as to become mature enough to comprehend this vast and beautiful universe in which we find ourselves.

      You can observe this for yourself:

      Watch the videos of the proceedings of the science conferences where the discovery of the scalar boson (Prof. Higgs prefers we call it that) was made.

      Watch the amazing degree of cooperation, carefulness, humility, and other personal qualities the folks there have.

      After that, watch Fox Noize or CSpan.  

      This is what I call "The Contrast," and it truly does lead to alternating despair and burning desire to help the humans evolve.  

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:46:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks. This has been bugging me for years :) nt (10+ / 0-)

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:53:22 PM PDT

  •  ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane, jamess, Rashaverak, Matt Z
    If Einstein could be wrong about Quantum Entanglement -- what else could he be wrong about?  ... perhaps the relative {constraining} nature of his space-time physics itself?
    Don't see that one in the offing.  Most of his math just describes the level of reality we normally operate on too well.  That he appears to be wrong about an entirely different level of reality, while interesting, probably only applies to that quantum-scale level.

    That being said, I'd be busting down the door to get me a quantum-entangled system for gaming.  No more lag!!

    "Actually, I just like saying Benghazi. Benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi!" --Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA

    by jackdabastard on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:05:23 PM PDT

    •  Lol (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, bythesea

      I prefer

      the asparagus variety.


      Sooner or later were going to have to: Trade in those Carbon Footprints ...

      by jamess on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:30:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Terry Pratchett (12+ / 0-)
      Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.
      He is wrong, of course. During the Hot Big Bang phase of the early universe, light was everywhere, along with everything else that could exist at that temperature, and darkness was nowhere. Light is still everywhere, in the form of the Cosmic Background Radiation, but it is now so dim that everything other than the stars and planets seems dark to us.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:08:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  damn, and I liked that Pratchett quote! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto

        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
        DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:02:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wait. Wasn't there reporting a year or so ago a... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto

        Wait. Wasn't there reporting a year or so ago about some sort of gravitational field expanding faster than light at the moment of the Big Bang? Sort of meaning that spacetime itself was expanding faster than light could fill it?

        •  Nope (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, science, Pluto

          Firstly, the light was already everywhere. There is no such thing as filling an empty cosmos.

          Spacetime was everywhere there was in our tiny little seed cosmos, by definition, and light was everywhere within it. Before inflation, light from everywhere could cross the universe to everywhere else, so it became very evenly distributed, and could come into equilibrium with matter. Similarly, gravity waves could cross the entire universe, not by going faster than light, but by having such a short distance to travel.

          Locally, spacetime currently expands at the Hubble rate, about 68 kilometers per second of expansion per megaparsec of distance, where a megaparsec is 3.2 million light years. So the distance between us and distant galaxies increases without either us or them moving. Even at the smallest scale the same thing happens. For example, the front of a photon gets further ahead of the back, increasing its wavelength in the Red Shift that cooled off the Universe enough for us to live in it, so that the entire sky is not as blazing hot as the surface of a star, or hotter.

          For galaxies more than about 14 billion light years away, their distances from us increase by more than a light year per year, so light from them can never reach us. But they are not moving. Space is just getting bigger everywhere.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:13:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Dark matter is just a placeholder name (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, Matt Z, Roger Fox, G2geek

      NdGT likes to call it dark gravity, which makes a lot more sense considering what it does

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:01:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reality is not stranger than we imagine, (15+ / 0-)

    it's stranger than we can imagine
    J S S Haldane

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:28:02 PM PDT

  •  SAAAD Communicators. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, G2geek

    I wrote a comment a few days ago in an Open Thread about the Dutch Scientist and how awhile back as I was thinking about how communication in the future between Spaceships might be done and what it might be called and as far as I know it's not been called SAAAD(Spooky Action At A Distance) Communicators but it may have been somewhere by somebody.

    •  A staple of science fiction (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, defluxion10

      but science is adamant about the speed of light as the limit. Anything moving faster than that would be going back in time, and would run into itself going the other way.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:09:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not quite AFAIK (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        science, Sandino, defluxion10, G2geek

        The problem is that allowing faster-than-light communication in every reference frame breaks causality. Going faster than light isn't going back in time, but going faster than light in one reference frame and then returning to the starting point in a suitably chosen different reference frame can allow you to go back in time. You could still have FTL in one reference frame, and get most of the benefits, but the spirit of relativity would be broken.

        Or so I understand it. Feel free to correct me.

        warning: snark probably above

        by NE2 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:48:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you end up at the same point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          defluxion10, G2geek

          but earlier in time in one reference frame, you do so in all.

          The problem I described comes for any object that reverses direction in time, and is therefore in the same place at the same time twice, however briefly.

          Tachyons, which would always travel faster than light, would not have that problem, but would have many others.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:49:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  which is why we need to take the present result... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        defluxion10

        ... with serious skepticism until it's replicated successfully.

        What seems to be the claim here is that you could input a quantity of text at one end, let's say a poem for example, and get that text out at the other end, with complete accuracy.

        If that's correct, everything we thought we knew is wrong.

        It wouldn't be the first time that an empirical result contradicted an established theory.

        But any time something comes up like that, where the claim is that an empirical result contradicts established theory, we need to be really really skeptical until there's more evidence to support it.

        Given the potential applications of an "ansible," such as being able to tele-operate robotic probes on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, in real time, as easily as driving a radio-controlled model car on Earth: given that those and other applications are things that would be enormously beneficial: clearly we have an incentive to have a bias in favor of the current result being correct.

        That bias in favor, should be offset by an equal and opposite amount of skepticism, so we don't "wish ourselves into believing it's real" unless the evidence is supportive across a number of replications.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:17:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, Mokurai, Mr Robert, defluxion10

          There is nothing unusual or surprising about this experiment.  It doesn't contradict any established theory, and it would only have been astonishing if it had given a different result.   Nothing in this experiment implies communication of information from point A to point B faster than light is possible.

          REI's comment entitled "This" above explains it all very clearly.   Correlations between random numbers cannot transmit information.

          •  Ah, I understand (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek, defluxion10

            your comment farther above shows that you understand that the word "information" in the Times article is probably a poor choice of words....

            •  exactly. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              defluxion10

              That's an ingredient in my skepticism about the reporting on this experiment.

              Yeah we all love to speculate about ansibles.

              But I think the NYT reporter is mis-using the word "information."  That translates to the claim that you can input Shakespeare at one end and output Shakespeare at the other end, which would blow up the Standard Model, for which reason I'm skeptical.  

              Correlated behaviors do not equal information: one has to look at it from what the receiving end gets nonlocally, and whether it's intelligible without getting the "key" transmitted from the sender locally.

              I think you & I are on the same page here.

              Though, I'm going to refer the original article to a couple of friends who are physics-trained (one's a physics Ph.D. from Princeton) and see what they say.  I might get ballzy and write to one of the authors to ask specifically.

              Lastly, and beyond speculatively into fringe territory, I think that with sufficient redundancy and linked error correction, you could use entanglement to transmit information.  But the required complexity of the system would be so high that it's not something we're likely to build in our lifetimes. (No, I won't make those kinds of way-out speculations in email to working scientists, they have enough wacko email as it is;-)

              We got the future back. Uh-oh.

              by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 07:16:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Heck, I could have told Einstein he was wrong. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Shockwave, G2geek, Matt Z

    If I had a time machine.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:34:00 PM PDT

  •  Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein agreed (10+ / 0-)

    Bohr dared to take it to its logical conclusion.

    Niels Bohr photo Niels_Bohr_zps2715389c.jpg

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:04:03 PM PDT

  •  Einstein was probably wrong (13+ / 0-)

    about removing the cosmological constant, but that was a publication, not just a soundbite. The hype about Einstein being wrong is unfair to him, since even though he recoiled from 'god playing dice' and 'spooky action', he followed the math.  He said entanglement exists, but shouldn't, not that it doesn't exist.

    •  The last sentence of your comment sounds important (5+ / 0-)

      Is it?

      •  kind of sounds like (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, G2geek, Silencio, Matt Z

        "hedging his bets."


        speaking of NOT gambling, with cosmic events.


        Sooner or later were going to have to: Trade in those Carbon Footprints ...

        by jamess on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:35:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "hedging his bets" in just the right way (9+ / 0-)

          People have a propensity to "go all in" on our priors, regardless of whether the weight of evidence is for them, against them, or utterly inconclusive.

          I cannot, however, base this conviction on logical reasons, but can only produce my little finger as witness, that is, I offer no authority which would be able to command any kind of respect outside of my own hand.€
          Dude was effing Einstein. If anyone could be forgiven for "knowing" things that he didn't actually know, Einstein would be an excellent candidate for clemency. History is full of lesser scientists who pounded the table espousing bunk. This is really kind of awesome.

          "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

          by HudsonValleyMark on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:32:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Einstein sets an example.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HudsonValleyMark

            .....that I think we would all do well trying to follow: being able to live with uncertainties about the relations between one's beliefs and objective realities.  

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:53:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yup (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek

              I almost said the first time: try to imagine DKos (or any large discussion forum) if everyone tried to live up to that standard. Wild.

              "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

              by HudsonValleyMark on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:27:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  inagine if Congress tried to conduct itself... (0+ / 0-)

                ... like the physics forum at which the discovery of the scalar boson (Prof. Higgs prefers we call it that) was announced.

                That would be Revolution with a capital R.  A whole new world.

                We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:31:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I was saying that as a person (12+ / 0-)

        Einstein felt great unease about quantum mechanics, uncertainty, and 'spooky' stuff that he and his colleagues revealed to the world 100+ years ago.  But those were his feelings on the matter.   They didn't stop him from accepting and using the math of quantum field theory, etc. they just made him uncomfortable, and dissatisfied.  He also felt bad about the cosmological constant he had to kludge in to keep the universe size constant, and recanted it, only to have modern physicists bring it back as dark matter.  His human intuitions were fighting his mathematical genius.

      •  It's like saying that (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, Silencio, Matt Z, Roger Fox, G2geek

        Sarah Palin exists, but shouldn't.

        warning: snark probably above

        by NE2 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 02:49:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yes, it's important like this: (10+ / 0-)

        Einstein said essentially, "OK, your math says that you're right, but if you're right, then something happens that violates everything else we thought we knew.  For which reason I'm going to be skeptical until there are solid results to support it."

        That's how scientists think.  They are trained to be able to deal with the apparent psychological contradictions of believing that something might be viable in theory but not correct in reality, or vice-versa, and the psychological uncertainties that are caused by that kind of thinking.  

        Most of us are trained to try to resolve uncertainties into certainties by using what amounts to emotional feedback mechanisms and pre-existing beliefs.  

        Scientists are trained to live with the uncertainties and seek out logical and empirical methods for testing them.

        You can train yourself to do that: really, it's not hard, it's primarily a matter of getting over the need for certainties, and learning to live with things that "don't make sense", and finding ways to resolve them without bias.  I call it "walking in the gray," meaning, the gray zone between the black and white of certainties.

        Does that make sense?

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:22:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It does. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek

          I have no training in the hard sciences.  I do have some training in philosophy.  When put in epistemological terms, I can glom onto it.  Actually my initial question "is it?" was intended to be playful.  I understood almost nothing in that entire thread, and when I found an occasion to insert a "whaaa?  whatchoo talkin' bout?" I took it.  But what you explained (and I think what I gleaned from Sandino's comment too, at least the last sentence) can be paraphrased as...reasoning well (no?).

          Actually, although this constitutes a digression from the diary, I think it applies to the Bergdahl...issue.  Too much speculation, too many assumptions and opinions based as much on emotion and unconsidered assumptions as on fact -- so that in many cases those eager to assert an opinion are effectively spinning their wheels. What might be better is bracing oneself to withhold judgment until you have more (and something more substantive) to go on.  (That's the upshot, no?)

          •  yes, pretty well. (0+ / 0-)

            The willingness to live with epistemological uncertainties.

            What you're calling "reasoning well," I would describe as being able to demarcate between empirical findings, consensus theories, logical hypotheses, speculation, intuition and feelings about something, and various other sources of "input" to one's thinking.  

            For example you might have an intuition about something, and then seek to reason out logically whether it does or doesn't offer a useful insight that can later be tested empirically.  

            Agreed about Bergdahl.  What we can say is we're glad he's back, and that whatever issues exist about his conduct will be resolved through proper channels.  We can recognize when we're making assumptions, for example when we're trusting the military to handle a sensitive case carefully.

            Humans in our culture have a tendency to jump to judgements, and it takes deliberate effort to retrain oneself to withhold judgements.  How much of this is built into human brains and how much is culture, remains to be seen.  But the fact that one can retrain oneself is a good thing and demonstrates the effectiveness of free will in regard to one's own cognition.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:05:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  this (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, Sandino, G2geek

          people who focus primarily on scientific discovery forget that science is a process, a way of thinking

          Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
          DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
          Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:04:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  is that right? (6+ / 0-)
      He said entanglement exists, but shouldn't, not that it doesn't exist.
      I don't know quantum physics nearly well enough to say, but it seems to me that a "statistical interpretation" was an attempt to avoid accepting entanglement of particular pairs of particles.

      I thought he was saying more nearly that he can't believe in entanglement, but can't rebut it either, although he thinks someone will eventually be able to do so.

      "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

      by HudsonValleyMark on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:44:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was my thought (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, Sandino, wader, G2geek

      Here is some more detail

      I also believe they have done experiments a while back proving entanglement, they are just just finding new and more precise ways of doing it.

      Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato

      by marko on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:39:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Big Al Peaked Early (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, jamess, G2geek, Matt Z

    He had three huge breakthroughs before he was what 25 (?).

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:11:43 PM PDT

  •  as a famous seagull once was told (10+ / 0-)
    To fly as fast as thought, to anywhere that is, you must begin by knowing that you have already arrived.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:14:18 PM PDT

  •  When inflation cosmology was first proposed... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, G2geek, Pithy Cherub, Matt Z, whenwego

    many said that it was not possible because it would violate the Einstein faster than light prohibition. However, in that case, as in the case of causality, nothing was really travelling faster than the speed of light. In the case of cosmic inflation, space was simply "expanding" faster than the speed of light.

  •  Interesting diary. But FWIW I read a lot of (12+ / 0-)

    scientific publications, and nobody thinks yet that Einstein is overturned on anything.

    More importantly, proof of entanglemen (which has been well established in experiment for decades) doesn't invalidate the relativity theories.

  •  In order for information to travel that fast it (21+ / 0-)

    would first have to be disguised as gossip.

    We'll eventually realize just how much we're all in this together. Let's keep trying to act like it now.

    by Steven wonders on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:54:11 PM PDT

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, jamess

    I LOVE when science gets even better!

    Weathering Michigan's recessions since the '70s.

    by jennifree2bme on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:20:28 PM PDT

  •  I've said for a very long time that C was not (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, G2geek, Pithy Cherub, jamess

    a hard barrier to acceleration. It's been done by Neutron Stars who have reached superluminal speeds.  

    It's been thought that this is merely an optical illusion cause by the rafractionof rays through a gas field, but I think this is an artful dodge.  Einstein's theories describe superluminal speed as being impossible because of mass, time and dimensional dilation as a growing differential between an accelerating object it's propulsion. This is based on the idea - for example - that the mass of an object dilates (increases) as you attempt to accelerate if faster and faster.

    So the argument is that this formula which calculates thrust would ultimately need an infinite amount of propulsion to counteract the dilation effect.

    From Newton's second law of motion, we can define a force F to be the change in momentum of an object with a change in time. Momentum is the object's mass m times the velocity V. So, between two times t1 and t2, the force is given by:

    F = ((m * V)2 - (m * V)1) / (t2 - t1)

    The assumption is that a V(1) increases so does M(1) until they until they become infinite and can not be matched by V(2) and M(2) - but if the mass increasing effect is uniform it should also affect V(2) and M(2) in the same way - as a result the increased mass effect should be uniform for both the rocket and it's thrust as it continues to accelerate.  For the most part our rocketry sources are not powerful enough to get us to near C velocities, the closest we've done has been in particle accelerator - which themselves are stationary and subject to mass dilation - while the particles are moving. A neutron star has two polar jets of nuclear force pushing them which have more than enough fuel to continue pushing them until they reach C - and without the mass dilation limit - even beyond IMO.

    i originally wrote about this a decade ago, eventually I'll update and revise.

    •  Nope (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, science, Pithy Cherub, XUdx, whenwego

      It's an optical illusion, but it has nothing to do with gas.

      Suppose an object were coming directly at us at nearly the speed of light, and suppose it let out pulses of light once every second according to our clocks, from points nearly a light second apart. The pulses would reach us at intervals much shorter than a second, because the object would not be far behind the pulse it had just sent out. Pulses emitted at intervals of one second in time and nearly one light-second in space arriving a fraction of a second apart gives the illusion of the object approaching at a multiple of c.

      That is only the apparent motion. It would be easy in that case to work backwards and calculate the real motion, which was less than c in the first place.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:21:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whenwego

      It doesn't matter what size of rocket you have, mass cannot move faster than c. If this were a physics blog your comment would be HRable.

  •  Excellent post jamess. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, jamess

    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

    by HoundDog on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 11:59:18 PM PDT

  •  Sci-fi writer Jack Williamson's "rhodomagnetism" * (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    … was just a fantasy — but something like it may exist after all ??

    😄

    * See Williamson's 1949 novel The Humanoids

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

    by lotlizard on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:48:41 AM PDT

  •  Science is beginning to make religion look (7+ / 0-)

    less and less crazy

    •  the roots of some of what... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, Mr Robert

      ... is described in religion, come from the attempt of some very gifted people to understand their world.  Sometimes they had insights that were difficult or impossible to express in the language they had available in their times.  

      If one takes that language as metaphor or analogy, some of it comes close enough that it's clear they had at least a rough idea or understanding.   Whether they got that from a keen sense of observation, or from engagement with some transcendent source, is a perennial subject of debate.

      Of course there are also numerous examples of where they got it completely wrong.  But the fact that they got some of it "right enough", demonstrates a kind of wisdom that was far ahead of its times.

      This is especially notable in Buddhism and Hinduism, and thus we have the Dalai Lama, speaking for Tibetan Buddhism, and having great interest in the theories and results of modern science.  He is also on record saying that if the results of science contradict the traditional knowledge/wisdom of religion, then religion has to adapt to science.  He's met with numerous working scientists, who have reported that his outlook in this area is sincere.  That's just one instance, one person from one tradition; there are more.  

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:38:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, not really (0+ / 0-)

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:40:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

      It's making religion look less inspired. While making it look ever more crazy - and little but.

      I'll take my miracles repeatable, thank you.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:36:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  a matter of interpretation. (0+ / 0-)

        Founder of religion:  "All is one, and all is light."

        Observer 1:  "That statement is literally not-true, demonstrating that religion is bunk."

        Observer 2:  "That statement is a decent layperson's metaphor for entanglement and the wave/particle nature of photons, electrons, etc.."

        Observer 3:  "That statement is the word of God, and thus is true and cannot be challenged."

        I go with Observer 2.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:14:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Religion (0+ / 0-)

          The founder typically doesn't found a religion - they just say something that can't be proven that inspires people who succeed in telling it to others. The religion is built around them.

          [Only Mohammed differed, though he is a notably successful exception. OTOH, there is little metaphysics in his religion that wasn't already in Judaism (and the roots of Christianity still among the Jews and Greeks around him) - actually, he cut down some of the metaphysics, especially from Christianity, as Jesus did to Judaism.]

          The religion would say "so your money is the church's, give it over; have some sunlight instead - or else you're getting nothing but darkness. Especially after you're dead, just trust us, it will be unimaginably dark and you will regret not giving us your money. Oh, and miracles, so don't believe what people say about how we're lying to rule your life. God works in mysterious ways."

          So while Observer 2 is worth listening to, and the founder might agree with them (and possibly ignore those building the religion on their founding statement), the religion looks crazy once science looks into "all", "light" and "oneness". Observer 2 just makes the religion look crazier, since Observer 2 sounds sane in describing science's "miracles". The religion insists on an invisible sky daddy - that's crazy when all you need is a laser.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:48:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Einstein was wrong about quantum physics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    And his opinions seemed to have been based on his unfortunate belief in a deity. He couldn't believe that "god" would "create" such a universe. This is kinda what happens when one substitutes their faith for empirical data.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:10:03 AM PDT

    •  Einstein's belief system wasn't binary like that. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, G2geek

      It was the fundamental perception of reality that was getting in the way.  Relativity pushed the envelope pretty far, but the new hip quantum set was practically getting into metaphysical realms that proved to be too much.

      While it's not wise to put one's faith entirely in God, it's not wise to put one's faith entirely in mathematics either, and Einstein simply didn't trust his own findings.

    •  I think he used the word "god" metaphorically (4+ / 0-)

      As in, it makes no sense that the universe wouldn't always follow set rules. If one chooses to believe that "god" created those rules or they just "are", then that's up to you, but the same view applies.

      Either way, I think that Einstein just couldn't get used to the idea that the old rules were flawed and just needed to be updated with newer ones more in line with observed reality. Paradigm shifts are tough on everybody.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:40:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  especially paradigm shifts that are fundamentally (0+ / 0-)

        incomprehensible to the human imagination!

      •  as we see, to this day. What to do about that: (0+ / 0-)

        People have a rough time when it turns out that reality exceeds the limits of their belief systems.

        Human brains don't like contradictions, and when reality appears to contradict one's preferred theories, the result feels like a logical double-bind that is highly uncomfortable.

        The solution to this is to just insert an instruction into one's logic-set, that says "when empirical reality differs from theory, suspend commitment to theory and seek out further empirical results before re-forming a conclusion."

        And also insert an instruction into one's emotion-set, that says "when the above happens, don't feel frustrated or anxious, instead feel wonder and curiosity in order to maintain alertness to further results."

        It takes some time and practice to get to that point, but once you get there, you see that it's the most rational and natural way to go.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:25:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  He Was and He Wasn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Namazga III

      His gut felt that an ordered universe ("god") didn't allow the statistical fuzziness of quantum mechanics in place of certainty of every event. He was uneasy enough about it to work to disprove QM, but after years agreed that QM was accurate - but incomplete.

      Whether or not Einstein believed in a deity, that isn't what he was talking about there. And even so his belief in the mathematics and human imagination of its meaning always outweighed whatever belief in any deity he might have had.

      You know an awfully tiny amount about Einstein's beliefs to be condescending to the mental powers of one of history's paradigmatically great and deep thinkers.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:39:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no no no: Einstein was a mystical atheist. (0+ / 0-)

      Einstein did not have an unfortunate belief in a deity.

      Einstein famously said that he had no use for the Abrahamic concept of the deity, and he thought that conventional religion was nonsense.

      When he said that "God does not play dice," and similar quotes, he's using the concept of the deity as part of a metaphor.  That does not demonstrate literal belief in a deity, especially in light of his affirmed atheism.

      Einstein also talked about "the sense of the mystical," but here also, he did not mean to imply anything concerned with deities.  He was simply saying that when one truly begins to comprehend nature, one can't help but feel the mystical sense of awe, wonder, and reverence for something vast and beautiful.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:19:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So does this have communications potential? (0+ / 0-)

    Two-way, instantaneous info transmission - as high-speed yes/no data streaming - with, say, deep space missions?

    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by Jaxpagan on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:28:25 AM PDT

    •  not yet.... (0+ / 0-)

      If you read through all the comments in this diary that contain the keyword "ansible," you'll get all the info you need on the subject.

      In summary, the present consensus of science says that instantaneous communication is not possible, but the present research has been reported as saying that it is.  However, if it is possible, then it crashes our current theories of physics, for which reason we should be skeptical of that conclusion.  More likely, the current experiment is consistent with existing scientific consensus but has been mis-reported by the lay press.  

      Some of us believe that instantaneous communication may become possible at some point in the future, but we also agree that this belief is outside of the present scientific consensus.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:29:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Multiple Dimensions and Spaces obeying different (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Box of Rain

    rules. We observe mostly by electromagnetic forces. What we experience could be called a "presentation space" and we cannot perceive other concurrent spaces. Is it possible that distance means something altogether different in other dimensions and spaces? In other words, are quantum entanglement electrons actually next to each other in other dimension/space(s). If you carry this logic to its extreme you could hypothesis the rather eerie conclusion that our "presentation space" doesn't exists at all, but is simply an artificial image created by animal brains from rather sparse input from other dimensions/spaces.

    •  there are theories in which... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Wizard

      .... spacetime is folded in some way, such that there are additional dimensions (axes of measurement) along which events that appear "separated" in normal fourspace are actually in contact (think of lines on a folded sheet of paper).

      However at present there do not appear to be any good ways to test those theories.  We're almost at the point where we can get some testable predictions from those theories, but not quite there yet.

      As for "presentation space" and "images," yes that is already known to be true.  For example photons don't have "color" in any objective sense; color is the subjective sensation produced by the way in which our eyes and brains process the objective characteristics of photons.  The same case obtains for sounds, smells, etc., and on through all of our senses and subjective sensations.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:36:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      I like to visualize the situation as a field of growing grass and a two-dimensional physicist residing therein whose senses give him knowledge of the two-dimensional surface area of the earth. The physicist can measure and think but he has no depth or understanding of it. He measures the distance between the point of each blade of grass to the next by travelling down the length of the first blade, across the earth, and up the length of the second blade to the next tip. He doesn't know what grass is though; he's just measuring the points that he's aware of in his space and he discovers that all his measurements are increasing daily and he struggles mightily to compehend what force could be causing all the space in his universe to expand.
      If he could only see in 3 dimensions as we do, he'd see that on another level the tips of those blades of grass remain quite close together and the slightest breeze can make them touch. Comprehending "Spooky-action-at-a-distance" is likewise possible by imagining a higher dimension exists in which paricles that appear to have travelled a great distance in our measurable space nevertheless - on another level - remain quite close.

  •  I know by intuition (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Msanger, TrueBlueMajority

    that my being here affects the whole universe. Its not something I can express in a mathematical formula, but there's no doubt that this quantum entanglement is real. Very interesting, now I have to get back to work!

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:51:02 AM PDT

    •  in the same way as.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      onionjim

      ... your eyes perceive photons and your brain interprets them, and you experience the subjective sensation of colors, for example "that's blue, and that's orange."

      Objectively, "color" is not a property of photons: reality is just black and white and shades of gray, like a movie or TV picture shown in black & white.  When we see "color," it's a property of our eyes and brains.

      Instead of saying that your being "affects" the whole universe, it would be more accurate to say that your being "is one with" the whole universe.  There is not an A >> B causality relation there, any more than your arm causes your leg, or your leg causes your ear: they are all one, all part of one body.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:41:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, potentially, we can read bad,unedited writing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raboof, jamess, TrueBlueMajority, Matt Z

    from the furthest reaches of the universe? Google will merge with googol and tempt not merely infinity, but beyond?

    Buzz Lightyear smiles at the marketing opportunities.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:30:52 AM PDT

    •  Or Piers Anthony's "Macroscope" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac, TrueBlueMajority, Matt Z, G2geek

      The galactic internet exists, but all the spam on it will destroy your brain.

      The thing about quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity. ~Abraham Lincoln

      by raboof on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:57:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  don't laugh, but... (0+ / 0-)

      ... the people behind Google (Sergey and Larry, et. al.) really do want to turn it into a computer God.  For which reason they've hired Ray Kurzweil, he of The Singularity fame, proponent of the neo-reincarnation belief that you can upload your mind to a computer and thereby achieve eternal life.

      What's pernicious and obnoxious is that they are imposing their religion on the rest of us in so many ways, such as Google Glass and the pervasive Google surveillance of online activity.  That is much the same as when a particular church tries to impose its religious agenda on public schools.  

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:46:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But, why do we assume that space is the same as (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    time, and that time must be linear and one direction?

    The speed of light has more to do with forward motion through a specific space.

    Spooky Action at A Distance seems to have more in common with some form of simultaneity that exists underneath, around or inbetween the "space" that is visible to us, that appears to be ruled by the "time" we have created.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:40:31 AM PDT

    •  Furthermore… Aren't the fundamentals of our sci... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      Furthermore…

      Aren't the fundamentals of our scientific understanding based on using light as the tool of measurement? So of course it would not be able to measure anything faster than itself, sort of like a foot race sprinter could not measure anything that traveled faster then his own speed.

      I keep thinking about a hypothetical scientist of a race that uses sound as their primary sense. They have no detection ability for light. All of their measurements would be using the speed of sound to report results. Then hand them a high-powered laser. From their perspective, they would turn it on and hear a hum, and before that hum could travel distance X there would be an effect caused by the laser. To them, it would appear to be spooky action at a distance. To them, something had just happened at a speed that was faster then the basis of their scientific equations.

      Is there some reason we cannot extrapolate the same thing for ourselves?

      •  good logic exercise, but... (0+ / 0-)

        ... the reason we use light as our tool of measurement is that as far as we can tell, nothing can move faster than light.

        In other words, we did not arbitrarily pick "light" and then "get stuck with its limits."  We picked light because our theories say nothing is faster, so light is the best measurement tool.

        None the less, clearly it's logically true that you can't measure beyond the limits of your measurement system.  If you observe something that exceeds those limits it will appear to be instantaneous or otherwise not comport with scientific common sense (e.g. "ghosts").  

        As we extend our understanding of the universe we also develop new tools of measurement, that in turn reveal new phenomena and relationships.  

        Before we can fully understand or make full use of entanglement, we will need some further extensions of our theories in physics.  Those extensions may turn out to be small tweaks (more likely) or major revisions of theory (less likely but not impossible).  

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:54:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  One political "spin" on this..... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Matt Z, G2geek

    Comes from the quote Jamess used at the end of the diary

    "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
    If you think in terms of a Newtonian Universe (individual particles bumping into each other) then the experiments reveal "spooky actions."  

    If you take other views of the universe, then the spooky actions aren't all that spooky.

    If you take a republican/conservative view of society, then what you do has no effect/impact on what I do, and we are not our brothers keeper.

    If you take a democratic/progressive/socialist/New Catholic view of society, then "every atom belonging to me as well belongs to you."

    So maybe part of what we need to do to create the world we want to live in is change the way we see that world.

    •  which is why the Oligarchs and their allies... (0+ / 0-)

      ... hate science with such a passion.

      It tells them they can't have what they want.

      Interesting to see the Catholic Church adapting to the new sciences.  Is this a result of Pope Francis' influence, or did it start earlier?

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:56:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, let's see. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Sneelock, Nisi Prius

    Einstein must have thought that there was another, better way to explain entanglement because he kept looking for it. But he couldn't falsify the theory at the time. But that is the way science works, right? Some scientist thinks that something works in a certain way, or not in a certain way, and he goes to work to prove his idea. But Einstein wasn't an experimental physicist; he used daydreaming and mathematics to build a framework for a theory that could be proven by experiments, which he left to others to do.

    Other scientists, those who conduct experiments, do not yet have a complete theory about entanglement because they keep running experiments. So the question is not settled.

    When Einstein wrote his universe-changing papers in the first decade of the last century he destroyed theories that were accepted as factual, as the last word. Newton's theory of gravity is the most dramatic example, I think. So, time marches on and ideas keep on coming. Maybe someday we will reach the end of knowledge about the physical world, but on the other hand, we are more likely to destroy our species long before.

    A complete understanding of the phenomenon of entanglement may be developed, but it may not. Entanglement may not be what it now appears. It could be a manifestation of some physical function that we don't yet know about. And it will take another Einstein to show us the way.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:33:35 AM PDT

  •  So Einstein is the new Freud? Or Marx? (0+ / 0-)

    Physics, obviously, like psychology and political economy, is anti-Semitic.

    Or is it anti-German/Austrian?

    Newtonian particles of the world unite!

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:35:27 AM PDT

  •  What this points to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yet another liberal

    is the likelihood that the entire universe is quantum entangled which supports both the idea that the entire thing is destroyed and recreated endlessly every roughly 10^−43 seconds (or less) thus giving the illusion of "time" passing (and therefore making time travel impossible because there is no "past" to go back to and there is no "future" yet to go to, either) AND the idea that the universe is simply a "holographic" reverse projection echoing back from the wave front of the big bang (instantaneously due to entanglement).

    And another question that would need to be answered is whether the quantum entanglement remains stable when one half is accelerated significantly relative to the other, i.e. does relativistic time dilation affect particles traveling at high speeds relative to each other even though the communication between the two is (or appears to be) instantaneous? Does acceleration "break" quantum entanglement? And if it doesn't, would communication even be possible when one is traveling at, say 0.5 C, and a message that takes one second to say on the ship, "We're all fine here, how are things back on Earth?" would take 50 years to play back.

  •  I think (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, AlyoshaKaramazov, G2geek

    the reporting on this is muddled. Thanks though.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:56:35 AM PDT

  •  So quantum entanglement might (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, G2geek

    explain how my one twin cousin knew that the other a block away had fallen out of a tree and broke his arm. The first cousin was sitting next to me on the floor and suddenly grabbed his arm and howled in pain.  About 5 minutes later my brother ran in and reported the fall of the other twin.

    I often wonder if this physics theory could be applied to certain psychic phenomenon someday.

    •  in fact that's not so far-fetched. (0+ / 0-)

      This has to be stated very carefully and read very carefully:

      The observed behavior of psi phenomena has some similarities in form to the observed behavior of entanglement:

      Alice creates an entangled photon pair and then measures the polarization of one photon in the pair.  Bob, at the other end of the building, receives and measures the polarization of the other photon in the pair.

      Bob does not know yet, whether the polarization he measured represents the polarization of the photon as it was generated, or whether it represents the result of Alice's measurement.  

      Bob only knows that he observed a given polarization in his own measurement.

      So far all of this has occurred instantaneously.  But for Bob to know what Alice measured, Alice has to tell him via normal means: by calling him on the phone or via email or by walking down the hall to tell him in person.

      Psi phenomena also display this property of "you don't know for sure until you find out via normal means."  

      When your one cousin grabbed his arm and howled, all he and you knew was that he had an experience of pain in his arm.  To know that he had received a psi impression from his twin (telepathy), it was necessary that you and he find out via normal means: such as if his twin had called him on the phone or when your brother came in and reported the accident.

      Entanglement and psi both convey "information" in ways that appear to violate Einsteinian relativity and local realist causality.  But the "information" conveyed in those ways isn't really "information" in the sense of "something that reduces uncertainty."   For the "information" to be understood and uncertainty to be reduced, some additional "information" has to be conveyed through local means.

      Quantum computation may play a role in the functioning of neurons in the brain.  For more on this, keyword search "Stuart Hameroff" and read up.  Hameroff and Penrose are the leading theorists in this area, and their theory has produced a number of testable hypotheses that are being tested experimentally.  So far it seems that the results are supportive.  

      I'm quite convinced that we will eventually figure out that psi phenomena are entirely natural outcomes of physical processes that are consistent with current theories in physics.  

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:00:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ahhh this is music to my brain. (0+ / 0-)

        I worked at Fermilab for 5 years and really miss the wonderful and thought provoking conversations such as this one.  I also helped to edit a couple of books by one of the detector scientists, but have no formal background in physics. I've heard of Penrose of course, but not Hameroff, so I'll look that up.

        Some more background on the cousin story. I was about 8 years old when this happened and was playing with toys on the floor with one of the twins (who was about 5-6) while my brother was about half a block away with the other cousin climbing the tree.  When the cousin I was playing with suddently grabbed his arm and started howling that it hurt, my mother and aunt thought I had done something to him because he was in such distress.  

        I had another experience like this with my mother and grandmother that I won't relate, but those two events have always had me curious about telepathy.

        Thanks for the discussion and the information!

      •  Well I did my homework and am NOT (0+ / 0-)

        impressed at all with Hameroff.  This is the kind of woo that the scientists I worked with hated.  You might want to revisit recommending him. He is a featured speaker at Deepak Chopra events and Deepac is definitely the woo master himself and totally full of shit.   So back to the drawing board on telepathy...

        "Dr. Hameroff claims, “I believe that consciousness, or its immediate precursor proto-consciousness, has been in the universe all along, perhaps from the Big Bang.”

        Understanding where consciousness comes from could solve mysteries such as what happens to the “soul” during near-death experiences, or when a person dies.

        Dr. Hameroff goes on to share hypothetical scenarios derived from the Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction) theory of consciousness that he and Roger Penrose, mathematician and physicist, proposed in 1996. According to the theory, consciousness is derived from microtubules within brain cells (neurons) which are sites of quantum processing.

        But what exactly is consciousness, where does it come from and can it be scientifically proven? Dr. Stuart Hameroff, MD, is Professor Emeritus at the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology and the Director of the Center of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona and much of his research over the past few decades has been in the field of quantum mechanics, dedicated to studying consciousness.

        According to Dr. Hameroff, in a near-death experience, when the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, and the microtubules lose their quantum state, the quantum information in the microtubules isn’t destroyed. It’s distributed to the universe at large, and if the patient is revived, the quantum information can go back to the microtubules. In this event, the patient says they had something like a near-death experience, i.e. they saw white light or a tunnel or floated out of their body. In the event that the patient is not revived, “it’s possible that the quantum information can can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul,” he said.

        The Orch-OR theory of consciousness remains controversial in the scientific community. [JAC: That's for damn sure!] Many scientists and physicists have challenged it, including MIT physicist Max Tegmark, who wrote a paper in 2000 that was widely cited.

        Still, Dr. Hameroff believes that “nobody has landed a serious blow to the theory. It’s very viable.”

  •  Cue in the global-warming-denier and anti-vax (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, G2geek

    crowds:

    "Even Einstein your hero was wrong... about everything it seems! And you want us to trust 'Scientists'????"

    (note they will always put scientists in quotation mark, it's a telltale sign)

  •  Einstein may have been (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, G2geek

    the greatest genius of the 20th century.

    But that doesn't make him infallible.

    Science has no agenda, to quote a friend of mine. Not even an agenda to canonize the greatest scientists.

    I want my farking teleporter.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:07:24 AM PDT

  •  um, (0+ / 0-)



    In honor of John Lennon:


    "Republicans: the party that brought us 'Just Say No.' First as a drug policy, then as their entire platform." ---Stephen Colbert

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:24:10 AM PDT

  •  On a tangent, I thought... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    ...this article on quantum computing was interesting, even if no one's quite sure how or if it actually works.

    Separately: I'm surprised that the financial industry isn't all over this; if there's a remote possibility of instantaneous communication of data, it would enable a company to have information faster than its competitors lagging behind by a few milliseconds.

    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

    by grape crush on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:27:20 AM PDT

  •  The big problem with simultaneous communication... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, G2geek

    ...is that the very concept of "simultaneous" becomes fuzzy over long distances.

    The idea of a device which allows us to communicate instantaneously with another being light-years away assumes that there is one and only one simultaneous moment between the two locations, i.e. that we can know what "time" it is over there.  Einstein has made it clear that is not the case, and his theories have been tested pretty thoroughly.

    If you had such a device, two people could call the same individual on some distant exo-planet at the same time, and if one of those people was standing still, and the other was in a bullet train zipping between cities, they'd reach the individual at different times.  (Yes, the speed of a bullet train would be plenty.  The greater the distance, the less speed you need to create relativistic weirdness.  At intergalactic distances, just strolling across a room would change the time frame.)  This leads to ways to violate causality, where someone could conceivably send you a reply to a message before you sent it.

    So, no, I don't think we're going to have instantaneous interstellar communication any time soon.  Not when there's no good definition of "instantaneous".

    ------RM

    •  well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek
      is that the very concept of "simultaneous" becomes fuzzy over long distances.
      not in the quantum realms, thats what makes this spooky.
      If you had such a device, two people could call the same individual on some distant exo-planet at the same time, and if one of those people was standing still, and the other was in a bullet train zipping between cities, they'd reach the individual at different times.
      not if the technology was based on this spooky effect. It what makes it all so fascinating
  •  parenthetically, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, G2geek

    that picture of the "speed limit 186,000" doesn't even equate.

    Light travels at 186,000 miles PER SECOND.

    those signs are posted with PER HOUR speed rates.

    So, it really should read:

             speed
              limit
        669,600,000


    "Republicans: the party that brought us 'Just Say No.' First as a drug policy, then as their entire platform." ---Stephen Colbert

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:41:49 AM PDT

  •  FTL communications? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    Probes and starships might still have to plug along, but if we can send signals back and forth with zero delay regardless of distance, that would do a lot more than you think to open up the universe to us.

    As for violating relativity, consider this: if the Alpha Centauri colony sends two signals back to Earth at the same local time - one by radio that travels at lightspeed, the other sent on Entangled Express - the two signals will arrive at different times: more than 4 years apart to be specific.  But which one would people on Earth listen to?  Which one would you consider as giving the correct information about when the message was sent?  It's entirely possible that in the real world, people will just ignore the paradox, intuiting that a signal had to have been sent at a particular time regardless of when it arrives.

    Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

    by Visceral on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:49:47 AM PDT

  •  Can another civilization send an entagled particle (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    I would like to investigate the possibility that another civilization could have found a way to send entangled particles out into the galaxy.

    Once we find one, all we have to do is pick up the phone.

    Another observation:

    The concept multiple dimensions beyond the ones we perceive seems relevant.  This communication is not happening in the three spatial/ one time dimensions that we perceive.  In the additional dimension(s), everything is connected.

    All one.

    Consider the philosophical / spiritual implications.


    The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

    by No one gets out alive on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:08:43 AM PDT

  •  What did Einstein Say? (3+ / 0-)

    He said, "in our Newtonian world."  He didn't say "in the whole world" or "within the realm of possibility."  Heresy though it may be, there appears to be more to the world than Newton or Einstein, and I believe that he recognized it.  I like to think that he would be pleased to see new theories presented and proved.

  •  How fast is gravity? If the sun disappeared (0+ / 0-)

    at exactly noon, say, how long before the planets respond to that?


    A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned. -- Firefly

    by Jim P on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:26:30 AM PDT

    •  gravity appears to propagate at light speed. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim P

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:03:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So 7 minutes? Not sure that's sensible. (0+ / 0-)

        If it were the Moon, I'd think tidal pull would instantly cease to be happening. Anybody ever test a) the existence of 'gravity waves,' b) the speed of such waves? Not talking about theories but actual registering on equipment designed to the purpose.


        A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned. -- Firefly

        by Jim P on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:11:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i believe there are empirical results... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P

          ... to support that conclusion.  Something to do with effects that are measurable from here that involve interactions between stars elsewhere in our galaxy.

          In any case you can look this up easily enough.

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:29:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  What's Unusual? (0+ / 0-)

    What is gravity (with which we are all familiar) if not "spooky action at a distance"? There are no strings connecting Earth to the Sun, yet is there any doubt that we're subject to its gravity?

    It's been said that there's no tragedy so great as a beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact, yet it's the world of facts that we must perforce live in.

    •  gravity appears to be... (0+ / 0-)

      ... a distortion in the geometry of spacetime that is created by mass.  

      Think of a large square of thin rubber that's stretched on a frame like an artist's canvas.  Now drop a large ball bearing onto the rubber sheet, and observe that the sheet is pulled down near the ball bearing.  Now roll a small ball bearing across the sheet and observer that when it crosses the area where the large ball bearing has pulled down the sheet, the path of the small one changes.  

      The large ball bearing is a large mass object such as a star, the sheet of rubber is the geometry of spacetime, and the small ball bearing is another object but with small mass, whose behavior is affected by gravity's effects on spacetime.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:07:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Due to the original singularity ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    wouldn't all particles be 'entangled'?  

  •  Einstein et al (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrBigDaddy, Boris49, G2geek

    I like to visualize the situation as a field of grass and a two-dimensional physicist residing therein whose senses give him knowledge of the two-dimensional surface area of the earth. The physicist measures the distance between the point of each blade of grass to the next by travelling down the length of the first blade, across the earth, and up the length of the second blade to the next tip. He doesn't know what grass is though; he's just measuring the points that he's aware of in his space and he discovers that all his measurements are increasing daily and he struggles mightily to compehend what force could be causing all the space in his universe to expand.
    If he could only see in 3 dimensions as we do, he'd see that on another level the tips of those blades of grass remain quite close together and the slightest breeze can make them touch. Comprehending "Spooky-action-at-a-distance" is likewise possible by imagining a higher dimension exists in which paricles that appear to have travelled a great distance in our measurable space nevertheless - on another level - remain quite close.

  •  What Einstein Really Got Wrong... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly

    ...was the barely mentioned "God does not play dice".  He could not reconcile the random quantum world with the cut-and-dried science of his relativity postulations.

    Thinking about it, I was inspired to pen the following ditty (caution, mind bending geek humor ahead)...

    Throwing Dice

    'Twas the birth of modern physics,
    Einstein's annus mirabilis,
    Beyond the music of the spheres,
    and all which that could tell us.

    Then the quantum world invaded,
    Einstein's God does not throw dice,
    and despite the protestations,
    'til he died that was Al's vice.

    Amidst the shouts that he ignored,
    all the while that Max Born goaded,
    the secret that they neither knew,
    those very dice were loaded!

  •  Not news (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enhydra lutris, G2geek

    Anyone who follows physics has known for many decades that Einstein was wrong about quantum entanglement.  But it's good for a press release every time someone does yet another demonstration.

  •  Thanks for the diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indres, G2geek

    The comments made for some interesting reading on a hot day when I'd just as well stay inside where it's cool.

    My invisible imaginary friend is the "true" creator

    by Mr Robert on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:01:11 PM PDT

  •  thanks for the diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    I personally think the quantum entanglement is the coolest of all the things we are learning about the universe. Its spooky action really goes to show there is a whole lot to this universe we dont have a clue about.

    information moving faster than the speed of light, string theory and so forth all hinting that we indeed we may be living in a lot more dimensions that we can perceive.

  •  we have know this for a long time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    You may be interested in this and what we were able to do with it:Structural Causality

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:51:14 PM PDT

  •  I'd say it looks like he was right. (0+ / 0-)

    He admitted that there was considerable validity in statistical (quantum) mechanics, and said he did not want to believe what his reasoning said must be true.

    You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.

    by Simian on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:06:42 PM PDT

  •  Action at a distance? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    In a curvilinear coordinate system, one point may have more than one set of coordinates.  In other words, we can see one particle as two. (Or more?)
    In string theories, there are more than the four dimensions of space/time, and what we perceive as separated widely particles in 4-space might be closely linked or even identical in the higher dimensions.

    Just a thought.

  •  I thought we had already done this. (0+ / 0-)
  •  What percentage of all of the particles (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    in the Universe are entangled? Does it depend on how the particle is created? It makes me wonder whether entanglement is much more a fundamental property go matter than a cute artifact. As someone once said, if it isn't forbidden, it's compulsory. Is the Universe a phenomenon of entanglement?

    I'm actually not even clear on what I am asking.

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:42:42 PM PDT

  •  Quantum Entanglement (0+ / 0-)

    But what if quantum entanglement does not need to break the speed (of light) limit to be valid? Exceeding the speed of light in this example is contingent upon the electrons' communicating (something) to each other, e.g., signals travel. What if there's a way in which they were never completely separated?

    •  There's still the distance (0+ / 0-)

      Entanglement means they're never completely separated. But still they're at a distance. And a change in one is accompanied by a change in the other that is instantaneous - faster than light can travel from the one to the other over that distance. According to relativity, nothing can travel faster than light; not through empty space, not through liquid, not through a solid or a gas.

      Physicists are not missing some obvious, simple explanation here. We truly are, in our normal intuitions, profoundly wrong about the fundament structure the universe. And our best science has deep contradictions among it claims. Relativity works; quantum theory works; each to an astounding degree of precision; yet they contradict and cannot so far be reconciled.

      •  not quite (0+ / 0-)

        Special relativity (which is what your post is about) and quantum mechanics do not contradict each other at all.  In fact, relativistic quantum mechanics is taught in most graduate schools and is completely consistent.   General relativity (involving gravity) does have contradictions with quantum mechanics.

        Relativity does NOT say that nothing can travel faster than light, only that information (a message) from A can't go to B faster than light.    Entanglement can't do that.

  •  I'm not going to bother going into why, but this.. (0+ / 0-)

    ... isn't actually that spooky.

    What they view as "entanglement" isn't a mystery. I suspect from the reference point of the electrons they are actually physically close to each other, so of course they interact.

  •  Quantum entaglements (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder if what they detect as entanglements could really just be particles behaving symmetrically because of inherent properties? Properties that each one has, independent of where they are in relationship to each other. Sort of like two twins still looking alike even if they are on opposite sides of the world. Maybe that would make the question why different environments didn't affect the two particles differently. Maybe they are just two small to be affected.

  •  Information transmitted? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    I thought that even though entangled, information cannot be transmitted between particles except at the speed of light.  Does the recent experiment prove that it can be?

    •  No it does not (0+ / 0-)

      poor wording by the NYT.

    •  you're correct... (0+ / 0-)

      ... current scientific consensus is that information cannot be transmitted.  The current experiment is probably consistent with that but the mainstream press reporting has used the word "information" sloppily.

      There is a small probability that I'm wrong and they've just discovered the operating principle behind the "ansible" instantaneous communicator of science fiction fame.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:10:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is this just Einstein bashing? (0+ / 0-)

    This piece baffles me a little.  It seems to just be picking a fight with a dead man who was almost as great of a philosopher as a scientist (maybe a bit over reaching, but he is the owner of some amazingly profound quotes), and the theory he won his most prestigious awards for, had nothing to do with his famous E=mc2 equation.  Ironically that awarded theory opened the doors of quantum mechanics, where Einstein admittedly questioned his own work and expertise in the micro cosmic world.

    One thing I also don't see mentioned is the very queer but substantiated fact that once you observe something in the quantum Universe, you change it.

    It should also be noted for other laymen like myself, that Newtonian physics and Quantum physics are two different Universes that do not use the same set of laws.  So in the Newtonian world that we live in, the speed of light will always be the same.

    Einstein struggled with quantum mechanics, because it interfered with many of his theories, and especially the big bang.  How could two Universes, with two sets of laws, be happening right before our eyes, so Einstein created his concept of the gravitational ether to explain how both physics could exist, even though he had disproved the ether in other scientific matters.  He was never comfortable with it.

    Then along came string theory.  Einstein was long deceased, but I believe he would have been fascinated by it.  For decades theoretical physicists tried to unlock the theory to no avail with mind boggling equation after equation until an equation often called the most elegant equation ever written, came along and stood firmly against every mathematical challenge to tear it apart.

    So getting into string theory is a bit much, but what it does for cosmologists and physicists is this.  It allows both the Micro cosmic universe, and the Newtonian Universe to de-evolve back into the tiny dot of energy (smaller than an atom) known as the singularity, which from this came our entire Universe.

    So while this article is interesting, I have a hard time seeing why the author takes every opportunity to do some Einstein bashing. In the Newtonian Universe, the one we live in, the speed limit of light will always be 186,000 miles per second.  If there is proof that can be broken in the quantum universe great!  Now we just have to shrink ourselves to a size smaller than an atom! Wish us luck

  •  In a thousand years people (if still around) will (0+ / 0-)

    shake their heads at the low level of our knowledge much like we do at the knowledge a thousand years ago.

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubt." Bertrand Russell I'm very certain that is true. 10−122

    by thestructureguy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:02:21 PM PDT

  •  Einstein was notoriously uncomfortable (0+ / 0-)

    with "spooky action at a distance" but ouor understanding of quantum entanglement is such that it is hard ot say if it is even that. One thing it is not, which the diary at times seems to imply, is a violtion of the rules regarding the speed of light. Under our current working understanding, no matter, energy or information is transmitted at supraluminal velocities. If we could predetermine the state of the observed member of the pair, it could be the case, but we cannot, and simply determine the state of the system.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:10:38 PM PDT

  •  I Would Give (0+ / 0-)

    almost anything to have a mind like that of Einstein, Feynman, Planck, Heisenberg, Bohr, Hawking or Rutherford.

  •  We Are Still In A Childlike State Of Comprehension (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ridovem

    We have so incredibly far to go to understand the nature of the universe of energy. I find it kind of embarrassing how bumbling we still are about quantum physics. But bumbling around is how science progresses.

    Here's my out-of-the-box explanation of what 'quantum entanglement is', stated as simply as I know how at this point in time in my learning:

    We humans experience three (although I argue four) spacial dimensions. String theories suggest there are many more dimensions. [Throwing out the nonsensical concept of time as a fourth spacial dimension…] Let's say there is actually a fourth spacial dimension.

    Now let's create an energy system that appears in our three perceived dimensions to be two separate 'particles'. (Note that all matter is energy patterned into a system of some kind). We fling these 'entangled' 'particles' off to infinite distances apart from one another. But what if, in the unperceived fourth dimension, they are not separate 'particles' at all. They are the same thing, an identity, a single energy system, that DOES NOT MOVE within that fourth dimension. It just sits there at one point in the fourth dimensional plain.

    If this is the case, of course both of these 'two' 'particles' respond when the other is altered. We're looking at one single energy system sitting solidly in place in the fourth spacial dimension. What we perceive as any lag in the identity of the 'two' 'particles' is simply a delay in our ability to perceive the change due to our perceptual limitations. Of course the identical 'change' in the 'two' 'particles' is faster than light. It's actually taking no time at all. These 'two' are actually ONE sitting still within the fourth dimension.

    Here we have a very simple explanation of the situation. Spookiness gone. Human limitations accounted for. Measurements explained.

    Off on a tangent:

    Let me emphasize the importance of getting rid of the concept of 'matter' as being different from energy. It's not. They are one in the same. Every 'thing' is energy.

    I'll also toss in the point that all energy has the property of gravity. If we don't believe so, it's only because we have no ability to measure that gravity within our limited perceptions, even with the help of our machines. The gravity of a 'photon' is so tiny that we believe there is none. And yet what does light do as it passes a massive gravity field, such as a black hole? The gravity of the field is enough to affect the gravity of the photon and drag it out of its trajectory. Explain how that is possible without the photon also having gravity.

    Disclaimer:

    For all my brainstorming, I know full well I'm exhibiting ignorance specifically because of my human limitations. That is why my personal catchphrase is:

    We never know everything about anything.

    :-Derek

  •  Hooray Science! (0+ / 0-)

    Now watch the creationists say "See, things can go faster than c, so the universe could be 6000 years old, so since my cultural heritage says it is, it must be"....

    This is huge. An obvious use is, carrying entangled matter on a space probe would allow for instant communication in case of emergencies, it'd also allow for much finer course corrections.

    I wonder if high speed trading firms will want fund research on this as a way to get even less latency to the trading exchange...

    I am an electrical engineer, run a reasonably high traffic server, and build autopilots and drones for a living. If you have technical questions, ask away and I will try to give a cogent answer.

    by spiritplumber on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 05:31:33 AM PDT

  •  Strang article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ridovem

    If Einstein was wrong about some things then that could be a game changer for most scientist. It means the size f the universe is wrong , the big bang may never have happened, and gravity is incomplete. While all this is going to make the theologians quite happy it is definitely bad news for scientist. This hypotheses may be borne out in the anomalies that scientist keep running up against and have to come up with newer and every increasing strange theories to explain.

    At the core of these "misunderstanding" is the assumption that we known everything about quantum physics. When we move down the into the physical world space becomes greater not smaller. The distance between matter increases to the point where the distance between particles is vast. Time and space become meaningless since in theory and there is no connection between one particles and another across the universe. To particles it all looks the same. At that level of a singe particle, the universe may exist as a sub space soup allowing all kinds of strange stuff we can't being to imagine.

    Entanglement may very well be a sign that there is much more to the universe than we now know and shows us an opportunity to start looking and stop assuming our theories are right and worth throwing billions to prove.

  •  After reviewing this... (0+ / 0-)

    Nassim Haramein's considerations about the Nature of matter- and general cosmology- are sounding better and better.

    Peace?.. where the money in That?
  •  Rec'd ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... for correcting Apple's advertizing slogan of the late 90's - "Think Different" always annoyed me.

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:45:23 AM PDT

  •  Didn't Quite Get Quantum Entanglement Correct (0+ / 0-)

    It's not that looking at one entangled particle changes the other.  The two particles are created in the same process and thus have their characteristics established.  On separation, as long as entanglement is not disturbed by other interactions, when you look at the one particle, you know that the entangled partner has the opposite characteristic.

    Until you look, both are unknown (cat in the box).  Once you look at one, the other is known.

    Any interaction of either particle with a third party (looking) breaks entanglement, so it only works once.

  •  Why do people keep making a big fuss about this? (0+ / 0-)

    All these entanglement experiments show is something very commonsense. Look at it this way:

    There are two cards in envelopes. Nobody knows which is which. We only know that one is red and the other black.

    Alice takes one card and Bob takes the other. They both hop onto spaceships travelling in opposite directions. When they've each gone one light year they both watch for the flag-fall at their starting point midway between them. So at the exact same time they take their cards out of their envelopes. At the very moment that Alice sees that she has the black card she knows that Bob has seen the red card. How amazing! Yeah, right. Not amazing at all.

    The reason why some people think the entanglement experiments are remarkable is that they take the results of the old, puzzling double-slit experiments and jump to unwarranted conclusions. Those experiments made it seem that viewing an experiment necessarily affected the results. You've probably heard of people describing this as the technical-sounding "viewer collapses the wave function" or the more obviously mystical "the light has no state until it is observed". Of course this is silly. The viewer is just another part of the environment around the experiment. That it should have any special effect on results is ridiculous. And in fact this was recently shown by a new version of the experiment cunningly designed to avoid contamination by the viewer.
    http://arstechnica.com/...
    or the original paper:
    http://dx.doi.org/...

    You can read more of my comments about this at my blog:
    http://miriam-e.dreamwidth.org/...

    ----- The brain is the only organ where you'd prefer to be the donor instead of the recipient.

    by miriam e on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:06:13 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, Pat K California, Thumb, Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, Mimikatz, DeminNewJ, hannah, itsbenj, Timaeus, TrueBlueMajority, Emerson, Yoshimi, Shockwave, Fabienne, LEP, mslat27, moira977, red moon dog, Bryce in Seattle, MarkInSanFran, Creosote, dweb8231, joynow, Einsteinia, amsterdam, Pithy Cherub, chuckvw, mrblifil, chimpy, pedrito, jennifree2bme, fumie, splashy, Cedwyn, Rotegard, RLF, kharma, brainwave, churchylafemme, Jujuree, defluxion10, zerelda, side pocket, Josiah Bartlett, rmx2630, Frank Vyan Walton, sawgrass727, sachristan, davidincleveland, G2geek, Bluesee, Simian, marina, radarlady, ichibon, UncleCharlie, unclejohn, SherwoodB, Flint, citizenx, basquebob, MT Spaces, ChemBob, Laurence Lewis, cfk, Sun Tzu, lotlizard, ivorybill, Ozymandius, Sandino, rb608, brentut5, spunhard, Rusty in PA, Pluto, bunsk, Jim R, Jim P, kovie, BachFan, WB Reeves, cybersaur, Mr Bojangles, HoundDog, Yellow Canary, raptavio, cookseytalbott, Prognosticator, smokeymonkey, KenBee, The Wizard, MargaretPOA, blueoasis, Conceptual Guerilla, 4Freedom, Crashing Vor, real world chick, Preston S, MBNYC, onionjim, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, NancyWH, MadScientist, bstotts, Little, One Pissed Off Liberal, anotherdemocrat, Habitat Vic, ColoTim, yoduuuh do or do not, Mary Mike, jeanette0605, Matt Z, terabytes, Shadowmage36, joedemocrat, jayden, jnhobbs, millwood, Moderation, Wreck Smurfy, JML9999, Assaf, on the cusp, TomP, Empower Ink, gizmo59, fb, MKinTN, Roger Fox, Youffraita, Senor Unoball, Aureas2, Involuntary Exile, bythesea, Swamp Cat, KJG52, jakebob, Lujane, tofumagoo, Cassandra Waites, Horsefeathers, palantir, ekyprogressive, billybam, LaFeminista, maggiejean, J M F, zmom, don mikulecky, indres, mkor7, dRefractor, petral, winkk, ArthurPoet, jfromga, Tommymac, Edge PA, Words In Action, cassandraX, Railfan, Just Bob, The Jester, serendipityisabitch, politik, kjoftherock, sunny skies, Kristina40, DerAmi, DiegoUK, rja, nirbama, nosleep4u, soaglow, slice, annieli, kerflooey, Teal Cuttlefish, StateofEuphoria, cv lurking gf, Boris49, BillyElliott, FarWestGirl, AsianAfricanAmerican, thomask, BarackStarObama, songsparrow, peregrine kate, Miggles, leftykook, Rashaverak, No one gets out alive, livingthedream, anodnhajo, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, AnnieR, Joieau, Deep Texan, Horace Boothroyd III, Mr Robert, doroma, New Minas, wxorknot, rat racer, AverageJoe42, Glen The Plumber, George3, Windowpane, Robynhood too, mythatsme, Hammerhand, Chaddiwicker, MrBigDaddy, HedwigKos, Alhambra, leeleedee, howabout, helpImdrowning, tuesdayschilde, tampaedski, River Rover, Rich Lyles, Wood Gas, patbahn, bygorry, marykmusic, lehman scott, Gurnt, thanatokephaloides, Skyye, Pablo Bocanegra, JimValent, hbk, BMScott, numble, funningforrest, jackdabastard, bobcat41702, BHSDesk, Johnld777, Limpbaugh, nicestjerk

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site