On 22 Jan 2007 at 20:04, Richard Baker wrote:
Andrew said:
Entangled photons.
Certainly FTL. Instant? Um
Entangled photons can't be used to transmit information faster than
light.
They cannot transmit information, but their behavior in gross
itself can be informative.
And to be
Dan Minet may be right in suggesting there is a
... good reason that advanced civilizations do not build Von
Neumann machines to explore the galaxy.
What would keep humans from setting up a radio transmitter that could
carry information a thousand light years or a radio receiver that is
As much as we all love the idea of starships racing across the galaxy a la Star
Trek, I think that the future of space travel is more likely to involve
nano-probes that can travel at close to light speed. They would be next to
impossible for us to detect and would probably avoid direct contact
On 20 Jan 2007 at 22:10, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
You can postulate information transfer faster than light, but that is
not yet seen in reality.
Entangled photons.
Certainly FTL. Instant? Um
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
___
Andrew said:
Entangled photons.
Certainly FTL. Instant? Um
Entangled photons can't be used to transmit information faster than
light.
Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
You can postulate information transfer faster than light, but
that is not yet seen in reality.
Entangled photons.
Do entangled photons actually provide for information transfer faster
than the speed of light? I used to think so, but was persuaded by
discussion on this list that
Robert C said:
Unfortunately, the argument, as I remember it, is that that you can
only measure the direction (say) of a photon after its collapse. It
could be `up' (i.e., an arbitrary direction) or down (i.e., another
arbitrary direction, but 180 degrees in the opposite direction). You
Charlie Stross, in his novel `Accelerando', points out that
intelligences who think faster than us wait, subjectively,
longer for radio messages to go back and forth than we.
If they think 100 times as fast, an 8 year wait (which does not quite
simulate a radio message to and from the nearest
On 19 Jan 2007, at 04:24, David Hobby wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1993006,00.html
So much space, so little time: why aliens haven't found us yet
Ian Sample, science correspondent
...
Using a computer simulation of our own galaxy, the Milky
On 19/01/2007, at 10:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
It is from the Grauniad, a newspaper renowned throughout the world
for its typographical errors..
Because of a printing error, today's Guardian is full of water...
Charlie
GCU The Day Today
___
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1993006,00.html
So much space, so little time: why aliens haven't found us yet
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday January 18, 2007
The Guardian
It ranks among the most enduring mysteries of
Original Message:
-
From: Gwern Branwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:39:06 -0500
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: New take on Fermi Paradox
This seems way too pessimistic, or I'm missing something. If there are
only 8^2 probes (each one builds 8 more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Original Message:
-
From: Gwern Branwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:39:06 -0500
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: New take on Fermi Paradox
This seems way too pessimistic, or I'm missing something
William T Goodall wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1993006,00.html
So much space, so little time: why aliens haven't found us yet
Ian Sample, science correspondent
...
Using a computer simulation of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, Rasmus
Bjork, a physicist at the Niels
14 matches
Mail list logo
