d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Whats Faster > A Thought Or Light?
Prev15678910Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 13,578
Joined: Jul 27 2010
Gold: 2,285.00
Feb 14 2011 07:32pm
Quote (zeratul87 @ Feb 14 2011 08:01pm)
you're right that observation doesn't require human interaction. however i wasn't trying to claim as such. i was using observation as a thought process as it related to the topic of discussion.

i never claimed that it violated relativity.

young demonstrated the affect of human observation on the wave function of matter. (wave-particle duality)

this has been extended to the above experiment which i have explained. there are several videos out there for people who don't understand. i'm not a teacher.

i haven't read about the group velocity of light however if you're saying that a group size smaller than 30, all together had a speed greater than 30 times the speed of light, that is interesting indeed. i'll have to research that.

I guess the point of my post was to say that even though quantum entanglement necessarily collapses the paired particle when one is "observed," this doesn't really have any practical applications, since there's no way for the universe to communicate that initial collapse to the second particle at faster than the speed of light. So really, while the wave function is actually 100% going to collapse into a particular state, there's no way for an observer to know that, so from their perspective, there's still a 50% chance of it being in state A vs state B (spin up/down), and when an observation is finally made on the second particle, it seems like it just coincidentally ends up in the state that it must.

That's how I understand it, at least. I'll watch the video now, though. I never had the chance to take a course in advanced quantum, so we never really got very far out of the basics like the infinite/finite square wells, the hydrogen atom, and a few other basic quantum concepts (like the proof that there's no Hidden Variable, and the Heisenberg and General Uncertainty Principles).
Member
Posts: 9,112
Joined: Sep 2 2007
Gold: 61.00
Warn: 90%
Feb 14 2011 07:37pm
Quote (bentherdonethat @ Feb 14 2011 05:32pm)
I guess the point of my post was to say that even though quantum entanglement necessarily collapses the paired particle when one is "observed," this doesn't really have any practical applications, since there's no way for the universe to communicate that initial collapse to the second particle at faster than the speed of light. So really, while the wave function is actually 100% going to collapse into a particular state, there's no way for an observer to know that, so from their perspective, there's still a 50% chance of it being in state A vs state B (spin up/down), and when an observation is finally made on the second particle, it seems like it just coincidentally ends up in the state that it must.

That's how I understand it, at least. I'll watch the video now, though. I never had the chance to take a course in advanced quantum, so we never really got very far out of the basics like the infinite/finite square wells, the hydrogen atom, and a few other basic quantum concepts (like the proof that there's no Hidden Variable, and the Heisenberg and General Uncertainty Principles).


there are many practical applications.watch that vid i posted. quantum computers is one of a many.

it doesn't collapse in every instance. the collapse is just a way to show that there has been a direct affect upon altering the state of one of the particles ( a control if you will)

i'm not claiming to be an expert. i argue to learn. this is my understanding as it stands.

damnit jim i'm a biochemist not a physicists
Member
Posts: 9,692
Joined: Apr 10 2006
Gold: 19,597.59
Feb 15 2011 04:56pm
Quote (bentherdonethat @ Feb 14 2011 08:32pm)
I guess the point of my post was to say that even though quantum entanglement necessarily collapses the paired particle when one is "observed," this doesn't really have any practical applications, since there's no way for the universe to communicate that initial collapse to the second particle at faster than the speed of light. So really, while the wave function is actually 100% going to collapse into a particular state, there's no way for an observer to know that, so from their perspective, there's still a 50% chance of it being in state A vs state B (spin up/down), and when an observation is finally made on the second particle, it seems like it just coincidentally ends up in the state that it must.

That's how I understand it, at least. I'll watch the video now, though. I never had the chance to take a course in advanced quantum, so we never really got very far out of the basics like the infinite/finite square wells, the hydrogen atom, and a few other basic quantum concepts (like the proof that there's no Hidden Variable, and the Heisenberg and General Uncertainty Principles).


to me that just suggests that the particles destiny is predetermined or possibly that time does not exist at all.
Member
Posts: 29,537
Joined: Apr 30 2006
Gold: 87.69
Feb 26 2011 05:06pm
as the speed of light is the fastest we currently know of, the answer is kinda obvious.
Member
Posts: 3,671
Joined: Oct 20 2007
Gold: 0.00
Feb 26 2011 05:16pm
Quote (normannen @ Feb 26 2011 11:06pm)
as the speed of light is the fastest we currently know of, the answer is kinda obvious.


wall of text> your answer bro
Member
Posts: 11,277
Joined: Jan 24 2007
Gold: 11.00
Feb 26 2011 06:54pm
Quote (zeratul87 @ Feb 14 2011 08:37pm)
there are many practical applications.watch that vid i posted. quantum computers is one of a many.

it doesn't collapse in every instance. the collapse is just a way to show that there has been a direct affect upon altering the state of one of the particles ( a control if you will)

i'm not claiming to be an expert. i argue to learn. this is my understanding as it stands.

damnit jim i'm a biochemist not a physicists


another is retrieving information from inside black holes. also with transmitting encryption codes.
Member
Posts: 13,578
Joined: Jul 27 2010
Gold: 2,285.00
Feb 26 2011 07:40pm
Quote (dothe @ Feb 26 2011 07:54pm)
another is retrieving information from inside black holes. also with transmitting encryption codes.

@Underlined: No. The only way to get information out of a black hole is via the jet stream that it fires off in either direction.
@Bold: Yes, quantum computing has applications in encryption technology, but the main reason for that is because it's supposed to be a MUCH faster computer, so it's capable of trying all possible permutations and actually breaking through 128 bit encryption. Once quantum computers come into existence, they'll be used to find even larger prime numbers to base encryption technologies off of, and so they'll be used to make encryption that even quantum computers can't break on a realistic time scale.
Member
Posts: 11,277
Joined: Jan 24 2007
Gold: 11.00
Feb 27 2011 01:44pm
Quote (bentherdonethat @ Feb 26 2011 08:40pm)
@Underlined: No. The only way to get information out of a black hole is via the jet stream that it fires off in either direction.
@Bold: Yes, quantum computing has applications in encryption technology, but the main reason for that is because it's supposed to be a MUCH faster computer, so it's capable of trying all possible permutations and actually breaking through 128 bit encryption. Once quantum computers come into existence, they'll be used to find even larger prime numbers to base encryption technologies off of, and so they'll be used to make encryption that even quantum computers can't break on a realistic time scale.


1) those 'jet streams' aren't coming from within the actual black hole, so idk where you heard that. and yes it has been hypothesized that quantum entanglement could be used in the same manner as hawking radiation is supposedly produced to retrieve info from inside them.
2) im talking about quantum entanglement. its application in encryption is simply that it makes codes theft-proof

This post was edited by dothe on Feb 27 2011 01:47pm
Member
Posts: 54,265
Joined: Aug 22 2004
Gold: 6,069.00
Feb 27 2011 08:34pm
Quote (juliusjuice @ Jan 24 2011 09:54pm)
the speed of light is faster than anything known in the universe. of course gravity ignores this and is apparently instant meaning if there is a messenger parcticle (gravitron), it is instantaneous or somehow ignores the rules of time we percieve... also, paired photons react to their couterpart instantly.


gravitational influence goes at light speed

you don't need the existence of the graviton to prove it, it shows up in einstein's field equations

Quote (bentherdonethat @ Feb 14 2011 07:40pm)
Observation doesn't require human interaction


yes it does

Quote (CPK001 @ Feb 1 2011 07:05am)
Thoughts are much faster because I personally have been able to think up an entire plan worth probably 63 pages in a word document all out in a split instantaneous second before.


your thoughts are just connections of neurons using electricity, which is an electromagnetic phenomenon that is slower than light simply because there are chemicals involved at the gap junctions

when i think of something, time (although small and instantaneous to us) was used to transmit the signal

This post was edited by Casey on Feb 27 2011 08:37pm
Member
Posts: 13,578
Joined: Jul 27 2010
Gold: 2,285.00
Feb 27 2011 08:59pm
Quote (Casey @ Feb 27 2011 09:34pm)
yes it does

Not in quantum mechanics it doesn't.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev15678910Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll