I believe that's called geomancy.garion wrote:there is the hole rifts world of magic thats dependant on ley lines as in ley walkers and ley focuses
While we're at it, add Fung Shui. I think that's how you spell it..
I believe that's called geomancy.garion wrote:there is the hole rifts world of magic thats dependant on ley lines as in ley walkers and ley focuses
No, as an absolute matter, the scientific community agrees with me. (At least until new evidence comes along.) You cannot disprove the existance of the flying spegetti monster, the invissible pink unicorn, or the flying teapot. Saying that this lack of proof thus makes them indisputably real, or even possible, is a false statement. In that sentiment, FTL is at the very least, a form of religion. Secondly, while there are theoretical ways of getting to the nearest star in less than 5 years. But to the best of my knowledge none of them violate relativity locally.darkhand wrote:Unfortunately anticarrot, you are both right and wrong about FTL.
As a practical matter, at this moment the scientific community agrees with you
Information is the ability to send a readable message. Quantum entanglement can't do this for ... complex reasons. You *can* in theory affect a distant particle through QE, but not in a way that any potential detector can reliably measure. Essentially, you can send a message, but they can't read it, or even know you're doing so. Relativity doesn't forbid FTL, just matter or information (same thing) from going FTL. Hence shadows can move FTL, but not carry information.Isengrim wrote:How does that fit with quantum entanglement? Particularly where the state of one particle is effected by changes in it's partner over distances making the ftl transfer of information seems, to a layperson, like the only explanation.
Also, is "information" a technical term in this context?
There is as much proof for either of these ideas (as a method for FTL) as there is for cold fusion. None. Theories without proof are also known as useless crackpot ideas. See String Theory.darkhand wrote:Casimir Effect and Quantum Tunnelling
I think I'm missing something. Given that it is possible to affect a distant particle, it ought to be possible to affect a continuous sequence of particles. All you need then is to get the guy at the other end of the line a codebook (presumably at subluminal speeds) and he ought to be able to read messages from the states of those particles. On the surface of it such a setup looks like it ought to work, so why won't it work? Or is no information being sent ftl in the setup I've described?ANTIcarrot wrote:Information is the ability to send a readable message. Quantum entanglement can't do this for ... complex reasons. You *can* in theory affect a distant particle through QE, but not in a way that any potential detector can reliably measure. Essentially, you can send a message, but they can't read it, or even know you're doing so. Relativity doesn't forbid FTL, just matter or information (same thing) from going FTL. Hence shadows can move FTL, but not carry information.Isengrim wrote:How does that fit with quantum entanglement? Particularly where the state of one particle is effected by changes in it's partner over distances making the ftl transfer of information seems, to a layperson, like the only explanation.
Also, is "information" a technical term in this context?
Yep, that's exactly right! Alice can force Bob's particle into the same state as her own particle, but she can't pre-determine what state that will be.Isengrim wrote:Even if Alice and Bob use a continuous stream of entangled particles Alice can't force Bob's side to take on one of a pair of clearly defined states in some determined sequence.
Alice can certainly do this, and that is exactly what you would do to set up a quantum encryption channel in practice. But without the ability to code valid data the correlation effect of quantum entangled states is useless for sending information at FTL.Isengrim wrote:what prevents Alice and Bob from sending messages using a special set of machines set up in a particular way so that "talking" measurements are taken half a meter ahead of "listening" measurements?