Einstein was wrong?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Girrrrrrrrrrr**

Let me re-phrase my question which i will ask in a more specific way:
When the spin of one election is altered, does its corresponding coupled electron express a change faster than the speed of light?

Selym wrote:
OneManNoodles wrote:

as far as we can prove, time is not an actual thing. There is a rate of change due to cause and effect. That is time moving forwards. Going against that would be getting the effect first, then moving to the cause. That would be going backwards in "time".

*rant about time illusion
It certainly is "a thing." That statement is gross oversimplification of various things stated in relativity and quantum mechanics. The statement that time, is an illusion, isnt correct. The concept of "right now" is an illusion and the way we perceive it to flow is forwards is not real. But "time" is there it is real. TIme is simply a measure of the interaction of an object in space with relation to other objects in space. Where the idea the time is not real comes from the concept that in order for something to be "real" it must be consistent. Since time is not consistent people simplified its explanation down to "Time is not real" because to most people, the concept of two times being correct is mind boggling even tho it may be the reality. "A light turns on, a gun fires, a woman ran," one observe said that is the correct sequence, another says "no! I saw a woman run, a light turn on then i heard a gun fire" The fact that both these observers can be correct confuses most people so we simply say time is an illusion, yet an illusion is simply an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience. Time is real but 99% of the humanity misinterprets it
*end rant

Space-time(or simply what matter moves through) has a seeming limit, in the way of speed of light. the speed of light simply is the maximum rate at witch two bodies can interact through space-time. What this experiment proves is another form of action at a distance, were an object interacts with another object, without sending any particle through spacetime, another example of this is something we are very familiar with and that is gravity. However gravity is not instant(when the gravity of one object affects the other, Now if you increase the gravity of an atom, this process does seemingly occur faster than light in that it is instant), gravity waves do travel through space time by their very nature.

So back to my original question:
When the spin of one election is altered, does its corresponding coupled electron express a change faster than the speed of light?

**Smacks**

Jehan-reznor wrote:
Nice now we can use spooky connection to make reliable communications over light years of distance.

No we can't, there is no known way to utilise this for communication. And there might never be as it would violate a number of physical laws.

Selym wrote:
as far as we can prove, time is not an actual thing. There is a rate of change due to cause and effect. That is time moving forwards. Going against that would be getting the effect first, then moving to the cause. That would be going backwards in "time".

It's not that simple though, as events can occur in a different order for different reference frames. look up simultaneity.

**OneManNoodles**

Girrrrrrrrrrr wrote:

Let me re-phrase my question which i will ask in a more specific way:
When the spin of one election is altered, does its corresponding coupled electron express a change faster than the speed of light?

Selym wrote:

as far as we can prove, time is not an actual thing. There is a rate of change due to cause and effect. That is time moving forwards. Going against that would be getting the effect first, then moving to the cause. That would be going backwards in "time".

*rant about time illusion
It certainly is "a thing." That statement is gross oversimplification of various things stated in relativity and quantum mechanics. The statement that time, is an illusion, isnt correct. The concept of "right now" is an illusion and the way we perceive it to flow is forwards is not real. But "time" is there it is real. TIme is simply a measure of the interaction of an object in space with relation to other objects in space. Where the idea the time is not real comes from the concept that in order for something to be "real" it must be consistent. Since time is not consistent people simplified its explanation down to "Time is not real" because to most people, the concept of two times being correct is mind boggling even tho it may be the reality. "A light turns on, a gun fires, a woman ran," one observe said that is the correct sequence, another says "no! I saw a woman run, a light turn on then i heard a gun fire" The fact that both these observers can be correct confuses most people so we simply say time is an illusion, yet an illusion is simply an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience. Time is real but 99% of the humanity misinterprets it
*end rant

Space-time(or simply what matter moves through) has a seeming limit, in the way of speed of light. the speed of light simply is the maximum rate at witch two bodies can interact through space-time. What this experiment proves is another form of action at a distance, were an object interacts with another object, without sending any particle through spacetime, another example of this is something we are very familiar with and that is gravity. However gravity is not instant(when the gravity of one object affects the other, Now if you increase the gravity of an atom, this process does seemingly occur faster than light in that it is instant), gravity waves do travel through space time by their very nature.

So back to my original question:
When the spin of one election is altered, does its corresponding coupled electron express a change faster than the speed of light?

Your quotes were messed up a little.

Read what they do in the experiment, it's been around for nearly 50 years now, it'll answer your question. But the idea is that each electron is separated by a distance and each has it's spin measured before any signal*** traveling at the speed of light would have time to reach it. The findings have constantly been that the "change" happens instantaneously, that is the spin of the electrons resolves it'self to be the same or opposite spins on both particles depending on how they are entangled. No information was sent. The interesting thing happens when they are spinning in opposite directions, if the first one measured is spin up the other will always be spin down etc.

*** Edit: send from one entangled electron to the other

**Peter Wiggin**

First time I ever heard of quantum entanglement was when my Dad read me Ender's Game when I was 6.

Ansible dammit, ansible!

**LordofHats**

Peter Wiggin wrote:
First time I ever heard of quantum entanglement was when my Dad read me Ender's Game when I was 6.

Ansible dammit, ansible!

Quantum Entanglement is the golden goose of the dream of Quantum Computing

Imagine a computer network that had the ability to instantaneously communicate between clients. Computers whose processors execute operations almost instantly. A world without LAG where buffering the latest Netflix addition takes all of a second!

**Minx**

LordofHats wrote:
Imagine a computer network that had the ability to instantaneously communicate between clients. Computers whose processors execute operations almost instantly. A world without LAG where buffering the latest Netflix addition takes all of a second!

Entanglement doesn't allow instantaneous communication (if we are talking about a usable information exchange). A distributed quantum processor is possible though.

**Selym**

Minx wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Imagine a computer network that had the ability to instantaneously communicate between clients. Computers whose processors execute operations almost instantly. A world without LAG where buffering the latest Netflix addition takes all of a second!

Entanglement doesn't allow instantaneous communication (if we are talking about a usable information exchange). A distributed quantum processor is possible though.

Communications would get faster, if you could interpret the entanglement sufficiently. Transmission time would be almost nil, but you'd still have the time it takes for the sender to process the data and convert it to a signal, and the receiver would need time to process the signal and turn it back into usable data.

Assuming entanglement allows for an instantaneous change of state.

**Laughing Man**

Selym wrote:
Minx wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Imagine a computer network that had the ability to instantaneously communicate between clients. Computers whose processors execute operations almost instantly. A world without LAG where buffering the latest Netflix addition takes all of a second!

Entanglement doesn't allow instantaneous communication (if we are talking about a usable information exchange). A distributed quantum processor is possible though.
Communications would get faster, if you could interpret the entanglement sufficiently. Transmission time would be almost nil, but you'd still have the time it takes for the sender to process the data and convert it to a signal, and the receiver would need time to process the signal and turn it back into usable data.

Assuming entanglement allows for an instantaneous change of state.

It probably doesn't. If it does, there's larger implications than interstellar empires or zero lag internet: Either special relativity is almost entirely wrong (an option which all observation and testing disagrees with) or we can talk with the past (this involves subjective time and light cones). I kind of like causality, so I'm going to go with "entanglement can't actually communicate at speeds higher than c."

**Selym**

How would you communicate with the past if there was instantaneous data transfer?

**Peter Wiggin**

Selym wrote:
How would you communicate with the past if there was instantaneous data transfer?

Well there is the theoretical issue of syncing time between two distant objects that are communicating. Time functions differently as you move around in gravity wells.

IE space-time and the way that gravity bends said fabric.

**OneManNoodles**

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Well there is the theoretical issue of syncing time between two distant objects that are communicating. Time functions differently as you move around in gravity wells.

IE space-time and the way that gravity bends said fabric.

... Yea somehow I doubt that you'd be using RS232 or an Ethernet connection so "syncing" isn't an issue

.

Gravity doesn't bend anything, since gravity is an effect. Matter {whatever that is} bends space-time to what you experience as gravity, this is general relativity.

Selym wrote:
How would you communicate with the past if there was instantaneous data transfer?

IIRC If the frame of reference of the information being transferred travels faster than light it's 'time' flows backwards relative to a sender/receiver, due to time dilatation. The higher something velocity is relative to the speed of light the less time it experiences relative to an external observer, go fast enough and this ratio reaches 0 (at the speed of light) faster than that and it turns negative. Things with mass cannot go that fast because the energy required to reach 2.9979[etc]*10^8ms^-1 increases exponentially the closer you get, eventually requiring infinite energy [good luck with that one].

But anyway, the signal sent it'self would then be traveling FTL and backwards in time, meaning you would have to have something receiving the signal when it gets there, in the past, what's a signal say if there is now one there to receive it? Say you receive an answer to a question before you receive it, causality breaks down and in fact the question is received before it is asked meaning information has been created possibly energy too (?). So more reasons time travel is generally thought to be slightly impossible.

I'd love to know but I haven't got a bloody clue how how two entangled particles could communicate instantaneously over any distance, I know they would have issues with coherence and that every time you measure a quantum object you change it. There are a lot of theories as to why, but I like the idea that reality on much smaller scales is less friendly to following our quaint little notions of what does and does not consist of our universe and the entangled electrons are actually the same one, just from different starting positions as it were.

**Peter Wiggin**

OneManNoodles wrote:
Peter Wiggin wrote:

Well there is the theoretical issue of syncing time between two distant objects that are communicating. Time functions differently as you move around in gravity wells.

IE space-time and the way that gravity bends said fabric.

... Yea somehow I doubt that you'd be using RS232 or an Ethernet connection so "syncing" isn't an issue .

Gravity doesn't bend anything, since gravity is an effect. Matter {whatever that is} bends space-time to what you experience as gravity, this is general relativity.

Gotcha. I'm just a dabbler, not an expert.

**Laughing Man**

Selym wrote:
How would you communicate with the past if there was instantaneous data transfer?

It has to do with your own relativistic frame of reference. Basically, say we're both moving away from each other at .87c, so there's 2:1 time dilation. At 12 weeks, I send an instantaneous message to you that there's been a mutiny aboard my ship, and a list of who was involved. Now, from my point of view you're the one experiencing time dilation (as all reference points are equally valid(, so your calendar currently says 6 weeks when the message arrives. You're generally a fan of my leadership, so would like to prevent the mutiny. You send me a message warning me of the mutineers. From your point of view, I'M the one experiencing time dilation, and when your instantaneous message reaches me my calendar reads THREE weeks. I now have nine weeks to throw the mutineers out the airlock and continue on my merry way.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

**A Town Called Malus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

In short, no. Cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) prevents transfer of information beyond the speed of light.

**Selym**

Laughing Man wrote:
Selym wrote:
How would you communicate with the past if there was instantaneous data transfer?

It has to do with your own relativistic frame of reference. Basically, say we're both moving away from each other at .87c, so there's 2:1 time dilation. At 12 weeks, I send an instantaneous message to you that there's been a mutiny aboard my ship, and a list of who was involved. Now, from my point of view you're the one experiencing time dilation (as all reference points are equally valid(, so your calendar currently says 6 weeks when the message arrives. You're generally a fan of my leadership, so would like to prevent the mutiny. You send me a message warning me of the mutineers. From your point of view, I'M the one experiencing time dilation, and when your instantaneous message reaches me my calendar reads THREE weeks. I now have nine weeks to throw the mutineers out the airlock and continue on my merry way.

Ah, science. The more I know, the less I understand.

You could resolve that by having both time sections occur simultaneously - so that they reply can only be received after the message. But I haven't the foggiest if that's even a valid statement.

**Laughing Man**

Selym wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
Selym wrote:
How would you communicate with the past if there was instantaneous data transfer?

It has to do with your own relativistic frame of reference. Basically, say we're both moving away from each other at .87c, so there's 2:1 time dilation. At 12 weeks, I send an instantaneous message to you that there's been a mutiny aboard my ship, and a list of who was involved. Now, from my point of view you're the one experiencing time dilation (as all reference points are equally valid(, so your calendar currently says 6 weeks when the message arrives. You're generally a fan of my leadership, so would like to prevent the mutiny. You send me a message warning me of the mutineers. From your point of view, I'M the one experiencing time dilation, and when your instantaneous message reaches me my calendar reads THREE weeks. I now have nine weeks to throw the mutineers out the airlock and continue on my merry way.
Ah, science. The more I know, the less I understand.

You could resolve that by having both time sections occur simultaneously - so that they reply can only be received after the message. But I haven't the foggiest if that's even a valid statement.

The problem with this is that there's no such thing as an objective universal frame of reference (thus the "relativity" bit in the theory of relativity), and experimental evidence already shows that time dilation does occur (it's even compensated for by GPS systems). Related is the fact that light will always appear to move at the same speed no matter the relative velocities of observers. However, light shifts along the spectrum towards blue as light waves "compress" if an object is moving towards you, or towards red (as the waves separate from each other) if the object is moving away from you. Thus, regardless of your own temporal frame of reference, light will still seem to travel at "your" c, as if you were motionless (which is actually another way to prove time dilation occurs, as well as how we prove that the universe is expanding without any objects in it necessarily moving).

I'm kind of just roaming about the topic of relativity here, which I'm going to blame on lack of caffeine.

**Grey Templar**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

In short, no. Cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) prevents transfer of information beyond the speed of light.

Only if you are limited to using the physical universe as a method of transfer. Sub-dimensions and space compression are possibilities for "exceeding" the speed of light. And really the speed of light is only the hard limit for matter to travel, I believe energy is not limited by it.

**Laughing Man**

Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

In short, no. Cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) prevents transfer of information beyond the speed of light.

Only if you are limited to using the physical universe as a method of transfer. Sub-dimensions and space compression are possibilities for "exceeding" the speed of light. And really the speed of light is only the hard limit for matter to travel, I believe energy is not limited by it.

Energy is also rather limited to the speed of light. Extradimensional methods are purely the realm of science fiction, barring (potentially, and incredibly hypothetically) an Alcubierre drive. Bright side of that one, they've gotten the energy requirements (not including the requisite negative mass) down to the mass-equivalent of Pluto last I checked!

Related: The Alcubierre drive still breaks causality for the aforementioned reasons.

**dusara217**

Laughing Man wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

In short, no. Cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) prevents transfer of information beyond the speed of light.

Only if you are limited to using the physical universe as a method of transfer. Sub-dimensions and space compression are possibilities for "exceeding" the speed of light. And really the speed of light is only the hard limit for matter to travel, I believe energy is not limited by it.

Energy is also rather limited to the speed of light. Extradimensional methods are purely the realm of science fiction, barring (potentially, and incredibly hypothetically) an Alcubierre drive. Bright side of that one, they've gotten the energy requirements (not including the requisite negative mass) down to the mass-equivalent of Pluto last I checked!

Related: The Alcubierre drive still breaks causality for the aforementioned reasons.

See, now, the issue with that is that lasers used to be the realm of science fiction, as well. And Power Armour. And cyborgs. My point is that everything is science fiction until we figure out how to do it.

**Laughing Man**

dusara217 wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

In short, no. Cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) prevents transfer of information beyond the speed of light.

Only if you are limited to using the physical universe as a method of transfer. Sub-dimensions and space compression are possibilities for "exceeding" the speed of light. And really the speed of light is only the hard limit for matter to travel, I believe energy is not limited by it.

Energy is also rather limited to the speed of light. Extradimensional methods are purely the realm of science fiction, barring (potentially, and incredibly hypothetically) an Alcubierre drive. Bright side of that one, they've gotten the energy requirements (not including the requisite negative mass) down to the mass-equivalent of Pluto last I checked!

Related: The Alcubierre drive still breaks causality for the aforementioned reasons.

See, now, the issue with that is that lasers used to be the realm of science fiction, as well. And Power Armour. And cyborgs. My point is that everything is science fiction until we figure out how to do it.

Lasers, cyborgs, and power armor at least had some basis in reality. Other dimensions are pure narrative fiat to bypass the fact that we can't move faster than the speed of light.

**dusara217**

Laughing Man wrote:
dusara217 wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

In short, no. Cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) prevents transfer of information beyond the speed of light.

Only if you are limited to using the physical universe as a method of transfer. Sub-dimensions and space compression are possibilities for "exceeding" the speed of light. And really the speed of light is only the hard limit for matter to travel, I believe energy is not limited by it.

Energy is also rather limited to the speed of light. Extradimensional methods are purely the realm of science fiction, barring (potentially, and incredibly hypothetically) an Alcubierre drive. Bright side of that one, they've gotten the energy requirements (not including the requisite negative mass) down to the mass-equivalent of Pluto last I checked!

Related: The Alcubierre drive still breaks causality for the aforementioned reasons.

See, now, the issue with that is that lasers used to be the realm of science fiction, as well. And Power Armour. And cyborgs. My point is that everything is science fiction until we figure out how to do it.

Lasers, cyborgs, and power armor at least had some basis in reality. Other dimensions are pure narrative fiat to bypass the fact that we can't move faster than the speed of light.

Somebody's never met an Astral Traveler...

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

In short, no. Cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) prevents transfer of information beyond the speed of light.

Only if you are limited to using the physical universe as a method of transfer. Sub-dimensions and space compression are possibilities for "exceeding" the speed of light. And really the speed of light is only the hard limit for matter to travel, I believe energy is not limited by it.

Stargate had subspace communication.

**A Town Called Malus**

Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Wait, so Mass Effect's Quantum Entanglement Communicator could actually work one day?

In short, no. Cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) prevents transfer of information beyond the speed of light.

Only if you are limited to using the physical universe as a method of transfer. Sub-dimensions and space compression are possibilities for "exceeding" the speed of light. And really the speed of light is only the hard limit for matter to travel, I believe energy is not limited by it.

Energy is limited by it, too. Energy has to be carried by some particle, be it one with mass or without. Any massless particle which has energy must move at the speed of light. On the other hand, a particle with mass may never move at or beyond the speed of light.

Comes straight from E=(Lorentz Factor)Mc^2, where the Lorentz Factor is equal to 1/Sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

If M=0, the Lorentz factor must be equal to infinity in order for the energy of that object to be non-zero. Lorentz factor is only 0 when the speed of the object is equal to the speed of light. We know photons carry energy so this must be true.
If M=/=0, the velocity of that object must always be less than the speed of light otherwise that object will have an infinite amount of energy. We know that energy is conserved and so an infinite amount of energy is impossible, as everything we measure has a finite energy and there is a finite amount of stuff in the universe (thanks to Big Bang). No matter how many finite energies you add up, you will never get to infinity.

You can also see from the equation for the Lorentz factor that if you move faster than the speed of light your Lorentz factor becomes imaginary, which also makes your energy imaginary as both c and M are completely real. Not only that, it would also make reference frame transformations in position, time and velocity imaginary, length contraction imaginary and time dilation imaginary, which completely feths up the maths