I mean... superluminal at transmiting information???
as far as I understand, its not. But how can Nature say it is?
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/ ... .1038.html
After all: is quantum entanglement superluminal or not??
It's not possible for a particle to move superluminally, but QM effects can be nonlocal and don't have messenger particles so they aren't bound by that constraint.
I've read smewhere that you cannot use entanglement to transmit information superluminally, I think because the state changes are random -- you're just measuring them at point X and point Y, they don't actually convey any useful information from point X to point Y. I think all they did here was (subliminally) confirm that, yes, point X and point Y observed a nonlocal state change which occurred at both places simultaneously without regard to distance (i.e., nonlocality).
Good info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlocality
I've read smewhere that you cannot use entanglement to transmit information superluminally, I think because the state changes are random -- you're just measuring them at point X and point Y, they don't actually convey any useful information from point X to point Y. I think all they did here was (subliminally) confirm that, yes, point X and point Y observed a nonlocal state change which occurred at both places simultaneously without regard to distance (i.e., nonlocality).
Good info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlocality
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
I have issues with that kind of interpretation. If one looks at the experiment in a moving frame then you lose simultaneity. So either 1) the "signal" has to travel backward in time in some frames (breaking causality) so that the "change" (wave function collapse) still occurs in the same place and time, or 2) the place and time of the "change" must be different in every frame to maintain the simultaneity with the measurement in that frame.
However, if you assume the physics is the same in every frame option 1 must be thrown out. If one says the wave function collapse is simultaneous, then it is always simultaneous in every frame. There is no reason to arbitrarily pick the lab frame as the simultaneous frame and say all other frames have to match it. This is on top of the breaking of causality.
However, at first glance option 2 seems even more absurd then option 1. How can one say something changes, but when and where it changes depends on the reference frame, which means the same place and time can be assigned multiple values which contradict each other. This wouldn't seem to even be self consistent.
Thats just my opinion.
However, if you assume the physics is the same in every frame option 1 must be thrown out. If one says the wave function collapse is simultaneous, then it is always simultaneous in every frame. There is no reason to arbitrarily pick the lab frame as the simultaneous frame and say all other frames have to match it. This is on top of the breaking of causality.
However, at first glance option 2 seems even more absurd then option 1. How can one say something changes, but when and where it changes depends on the reference frame, which means the same place and time can be assigned multiple values which contradict each other. This wouldn't seem to even be self consistent.
Thats just my opinion.
Carter