this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
237 points (87.1% liked)

Technology

59086 readers
3496 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Subspace is the answer of course!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 78 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (8 children)

Uh, no shit? That's how light works once you're able to travel at relativistic speeds - communication over interstellar distances using light is going to take ages.

Even within our own solar system interplanetary travel will have significant communication time delays.

Edit: also, we already know that matter and light can't exceed c, but I wouldn't be surprised if we discover that other forces (gravitation, or another that we haven't understood yet) can transmit information at speeds >c. I wouldn't be surprised if we turned to quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication over extreme distances either.

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Gravity travels at c. The Alcubierre drive tried to use bubbles in spacetime to "bend the rules" in order to result in apparent >c velocities but recent simulations indicate the bubble becomes unstable when attempting to exceed c.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Then we need the Tim (Allen) Taylor solution.

Moar Power! Uhh uhh uhh uhh uhh

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 24 points 11 months ago (2 children)

My first thought was 'no shit' as well. There's a horrible heartbreaking anime about that.. Voices of a Distant Star.

other forces ... can transmit information at speeds >c

I sadly disagree. Even if we figure out a way to instantaneously transport ourselves across the universe, there will be some shitty clause in fine-print that says we can't go back, or it took 0 time for us but 1 billion years for everything else.

Check out this video by Anton Petrov:

https://odysee.com/@whatdamath:8/woah!-someone-just-sent-an-impossible:4

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

or it took 0 time for us but 1 billion years for everything else.

That's just time travel with extra steps!

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We are all currently time-traveling at a ratio of (edit: roughly) 1:1

[–] Jamie@jamie.moe 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They're probably referring to quantum entanglement, which affects the entangled particles instantly.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but you can't interfere with quantum entangled particles, if you do you break the entanglement. So it isn't usable as a method of communication.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

It isn’t usable as a method of communication by any means we’re aware of.

[–] anotherandrew@lemmy.mixdown.ca 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Something I’ve not been asked to get through my head about QE: If observing the entangled particle destroys the entanglement, doesn’t that mean we’d need “containers” of entangled particles to send a bunch of information?

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 3 points 10 months ago

You can't send information with entangled particles. You just learn the state of the other particle by inference when you observe the first particle.

[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Quantum entanglement is like ripping a photo in half, putting both halves in seperate envelopes and carrying them to opposite ends of the world.
As soon as you open your envelope, you instantly know which half of the photo is on the other side of the planet - Faster Than Light Information Transfer!

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

For a variety of reasons, no information is actually transferred. Quantum entanglement can not be used to get around the limits imposed by relativity.

[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's what I was trying to illustrate.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Illustrate?? I thought you were talking about photographs

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This is a great analogy. Consider it ~~stolen~~ pirated.

[–] INeedMana@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So it's not like: when I affect the hue (some attribute) of my half, the other half will change too? That has always been my understanding of it

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, measuring one particle collapses the entanglement and they no longer affect each other. It is a one time thing. You can't modify them after they have been observed.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So at best it can be used for unpredictable coordination between vastly-spaced armies.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Nope. Because you don't know when it will collapse,. Imagine you have 2 balls, a red and a blue. They are both put in boxes and each ship takes 1 box. After you travel a long distance you open your box. You have just collapsed the "superposition" of what color the balls were. You now know what color both balls are, but you don't know if the other person has looked in their box yet.

I think a lot of people get confused by the term "observe" when talking about collapsing quantum uncertainty. Observing requires a photon to interact with the particle which is what caused it to "choose" what state it is in.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The problem with information traveling ftl is, that you're very quickly running into paradoxes. So just by logic wanting to keep intact, I feel like ftl communication will be impossible

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Logically it makes sense, but the real world is years and often we don't use the right logical systems. It makes logical sense to most people that a heavy object falls faster then a light object ,but we know that is false (and a also a non obvious logical system that also shows it is false)

[–] justJanne@startrek.website 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If you actually calculate the maximum speed at which information can travel before causing paradoxes, in some situations it could safely exceed c.

For two observers who are not in motion relative to each other, information could be transmitted instantly, regardless of the distance, without causing a paradox.

The faster the observers are traveling relatively to each other, the slower information would have to travel to avoid causing paradoxes.

More interestingly, this maximum paradox-free speed correlates with the time and space dilation caused by the observers' motion.

From your own reference frame, another person is moving at a speed of v*c. The maximum speed at which you could send a message to that observer, without causing a paradox, looks something like c/sqrt(v) (very simplified).

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

C is more than just the speed of light. It is the speed of Causality. No information can travel faster than C in a vacuum. Gravitational waves already reach us faster than the light from events that cause them (i.e. neutron star collisions) Because small particles slow down the light over long distances, as they absorb and then re-emit the photons.

[–] Jamie@jamie.moe 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

By the time we invent any sort of lightspeed travel, we'll have long conquered quantum entanglement. If you have a signal transferred over a properly quantum entangled technology, the signal would transfer instantaneously.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Another option would be tiny temporary Einstein Rosen bridges. Sure the energy requirements would be hideous, but if we've figured out how to exceed C, I don't think we really care about energy costs anymore.

[–] mypasswordistaco@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 10 months ago

You cannot transmit information through entangled particles, so probably not.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Oh, you already know about it. No one else should bother reading then.