Could quantum entanglement (aka 'Spooky Action') be somehow used to transmit information across lightyears without delay? And, if this is possible, could there be connections to several locations, not just two entwined particles?
No. Nothing in the current model of physics predicts ANY possibility of faster than light travel or communication. There are theories about how to avoid it, such as worm holes, and bending space, etc. However, these still do not transmit information faster than light. In any universe, you can have two out of the following three: Causality, General Relativity, Faster-than-light It seems our universe has causality and general relativity. Should someone discover FTL communication (or travel), then you are now living in a non-causal universe. Not pretty. -AntonK
thanks what if causality is only an aspect of the state of space. For example, what if an extremely large mass warps space such that causality no longer exists, if that is possible to do. Although i guess that wouldn't be FTL but rather a loop in time or no time at all. causality would still exist outside of the effect of that mass, but not within it. am i just talking about the unknown effects of a black hole now?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. But no, causality is not effected by mass. Causality is simply the property of this universe that says cause precedes effect. Violations in causality are not good. -AntonK
AntonK: What makes you so certain that there is causality? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, various well know phenomena, and other aspects of Quantum Theory provide some good reasons to not believe in causality.
Trilairian:: It is hard to justify causality for any process which produces random data. Most (perhaps all) quantum processes show all the characteristics of random processes. The classical world of our senses is based on quantum processes. The above makes causality look dubious at best. BTW: If determinism is in question, how can causality not be?
Lets say event A has a 50% chance of causing event B and a 50% chance of causing event C. Which oucome you find upon observation rather than the other can be utterly indeterministic, but still event A caused whichever actually occured. If an electron is spin up in z and you do a spin x measurement, the observation will cause the wave function to collapse to either spin up x or spin down x even though which one is indeterministic.
Tril' is pretending to be totally unaware of the quantum physics principle that any and every past history that is possible is equally valid as being considered to be the past history for any specific event.
Show me a case of causality violation and we'll start considering the possibility of FTL communication. Conversely, show me a TRUE instance of FTL communication and I'll believe in causality violate (and thus essentially time traveling). -AntonK
Einstein showed it to you a hundred years ago with his anecdote of lightning striking both ends of a train car. How easily we forget the relativity of simultaneity ( and cause and effect ). The very well established activity of quantum entangled particles both knowing which way to be polarized ( or whatever ) even though mutually remote in distance and/or time is TRUE FTL communication even though they admittedly are not being used for your phone service. Definition of the word "communication" is a convenient semantic device. Abuse of the word cannot obscure the fact that something is being transacted between parties much faster than if they were relying on a signal at c to carry out the negotiation.
You're missing the point. While quantum entaglement DOES act at FTL speeds, energy and information can't be transmitted using it. Relativity is preserved. The wave's information still doesn't move faster than the speed of light.
This is yust a ID I have it's proberly flawed somewhere but anyway this is how it goes. In the previus example a outside observer sees something move FTL but if you were inside the experiment moving with the electrical pulse you would observe to go slower then light. Now if you were in a space ship moving at 75% Lightspeed a outside observer would observe you to go slower then the speed of light. However a observer inside the space ship would not need 488 days to reach a lightyear because of the time dilation witch is abouth 1=1.51 at this speed and would therefore only measure 323 days well under a full year meaning a inside observer would confirm he's moving FTL. If so wouldn't there be a way to mix those two
The article itself answers that. You just have to read more than the headline. "While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon. Signals also get weaker and more distorted the faster they go, so in theory no useful information can get transmitted at faster-than-light speeds,"
it's true that the observer will be moving faster than light if you combine the distance measure of the outside observer and the time measure of the spaceship observer but if you take either reference frame individually, you'll still get slower than light speeds. The outside observer will see the spaceship observer moving at 75% c, and the spaceship observer will have to define a lightyear in terms of a lightwave moving past the ship (so he'll still be sublight)
