[I have not got my degree yet but...] I'd be surprised if it affected the possibility of FTL travel by simple acceleration (I mean, you still won't get FTL with a rocket or anything) as: 1) That is a practical certainty from experiments with particle accelerators and the like - we simply can't accelerate a particle beyond the speed of light 2) This new 'GR' agrees with conventional GR in the low-field limit, and so probably agrees with Special Relativity which forbids conventional FTL 3) This is an example of an infinity which is never physically realised, whereas the black hole - style infinities are, in conventional GR, physically realised. By that I mean you can't ever reach the 'lightspeed infinity' but you can reach the 'singularity infinity' IF GR is correct. Having said that, the few tentative possible FTL methods like wormholes and Alcubierre drives are very much a General Relativistic effect involving gravity and so could possibly be affected if this new theory is correct.
My quantum mechanics isn't up to all that much yet. However, I'm confident that not one reliable source on the matter that I have read allows for anything other than the inherent non-local transmission of random information.
A good reference is the Usenet Physics Faq which says: 'It has been shown by Eberhard that no information can be passed using this effect so there is no FTL communication' on this page.
Its easy to come up with ideas but unfortunately quantum mechanics has a way of screwing things up when you try and cheat:)
So, I'm Eve. I'm bugging your channel. You keep trying to get yourself your key between yourself and Bob, but I've got a bug somewhere and I keep ruining your data.
So how do you get your secure key? I keep screwing up your attempts. Does this force you to resort to conventional public key cryptography?
I must be missing something. I'm always missing something.
As far as I know it doesn't allow superluminal communication. It guarantees that you can know the result of a measurement elsewhere - this measurement is what is transmitted 'spookily' but the actual result of the measurement is random and so carries no information.
At least thats the way I always 'understood' it, 'understood' being used in the usual sense that people claim to 'understand' quantum mechanics - ie not at all.
Hope that helps. If it does its a miracle in itself.
What I meant was that I thought that if space was flat locally rather than over the universe as a whole, you have no net gravitational force. Hence although space may be flat when considered on universe-scales the space we are living in is certainly curved.
This paper suggests that space could well be flat. The way to think about the saddle-shaped business is probably to think about more local properties that you could in principle measure from the comfort of your own room. If space were negatively curved you could draw a triangle in your room and the angles in it would add up to less than 180 degrees. Trying to think about how things fit into curved space will only give you a headache:)
A critical factor is tolerance of user errors. Look at it this way:
A simple command line interface is very likely to throw something back in your face if you make a speling mistake. If you have command-line-completion and spell-checking things get a whole lot easier, there are fewer keys to press wrong.
A GUI makes things even easier - you just point at the right icons. In this respect being able to see what you are doing as you are doing it may make it better than a voice interface. How many times have you made a verbal slip-up in conversation today? And how many times did you pick the wrong icon in comparison?
Perhaps it would then be better to begin pushing for more efficient programming usage of multi-processors on a single system? From what I know which isn't a lot, we could make more use of parallel processing than most systems currently allow for, or am I completely wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
[I have not got my degree yet but...] I'd be surprised if it affected the possibility of FTL travel by simple acceleration (I mean, you still won't get FTL with a rocket or anything) as:
1) That is a practical certainty from experiments with particle accelerators and the like - we simply can't accelerate a particle beyond the speed of light
2) This new 'GR' agrees with conventional GR in the low-field limit, and so probably agrees with Special Relativity which forbids conventional FTL
3) This is an example of an infinity which is never physically realised, whereas the black hole - style infinities are, in conventional GR, physically realised. By that I mean you can't ever reach the 'lightspeed infinity' but you can reach the 'singularity infinity' IF GR is correct.
Having said that, the few tentative possible FTL methods like wormholes and Alcubierre drives are very much a General Relativistic effect involving gravity and so could possibly be affected if this new theory is correct.
A good reference is the Usenet Physics Faq which says: 'It has been shown by Eberhard that no information can be passed using this effect so there is no FTL communication' on this page.
Its easy to come up with ideas but unfortunately quantum mechanics has a way of screwing things up when you try and cheat :)
So how do you get your secure key? I keep screwing up your attempts. Does this force you to resort to conventional public key cryptography?
I must be missing something. I'm always missing something.
At least thats the way I always 'understood' it, 'understood' being used in the usual sense that people claim to 'understand' quantum mechanics - ie not at all.
Hope that helps. If it does its a miracle in itself.
But then I'm no general relativity expert :)
This paper suggests that space could well be flat. The way to think about the saddle-shaped business is probably to think about more local properties that you could in principle measure from the comfort of your own room. If space were negatively curved you could draw a triangle in your room and the angles in it would add up to less than 180 degrees. Trying to think about how things fit into curved space will only give you a headache :)
Anyway - you are certainly living in a curved space, as demonstrated by the fact that gravity is doing a nice job of holding you in your seat.
A simple command line interface is very likely to throw something back in your face if you make a speling mistake. If you have command-line-completion and spell-checking things get a whole lot easier, there are fewer keys to press wrong.
A GUI makes things even easier - you just point at the right icons. In this respect being able to see what you are doing as you are doing it may make it better than a voice interface. How many times have you made a verbal slip-up in conversation today? And how many times did you pick the wrong icon in comparison?
Perhaps it would then be better to begin pushing for more efficient programming usage of multi-processors on a single system? From what I know which isn't a lot, we could make more use of parallel processing than most systems currently allow for, or am I completely wrong?