🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 5, 3:24 pm, Victor Porton <porton.vic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 2:56 pm, Victor Porton <porton.vic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 10:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 1:53 pm, Victor Porton <por...@narod.ru> wrote:
>
> > > > > I have the following rough idea:
>
> > > > > Suppose some kind of time machine exists (it may be e.g. two connected
> > > > > moving blackholes with wormhole between).
>
> > > > > Suppose somebody want to use it to travel in the past when he was a
> > > > > child and kill himself in the childhood.
>
> > > > > If he would do it it would violate basic principles.
>
> > > > > So something necessarily would disturb him to do it.
>
> > > > > It looks like that the force which would disturb him to do it shall be
> > > > > very clever. I suspect that this way we would deduce existence of God.
>
> > > > > Can we put it in rigorous mathematical formulas, such as requiring
> > > > > existence in physical reality a function which could solve any math
> > > > > problem on its input? (We may think about a mathematician borrowing a
> > > > > theorem from the future, so that there would be no man who proved the
> > > > > theorem first, or something similar to find such a solving function, I
> > > > > suspect.)
>
> > > > > Also I suspect that something similar may be deduced from existence of
> > > > > faster-than-light quantum teleportation (because it violated the
> > > > > principle of causality in the sense of Relativity Theory).
>
> > > > > So, can anybody formulate these physical theories in exact formulas
> > > > > (about a "solving any problems" physical function)?
>
> > > > First of all, it does no good to suppose something that violates known
> > > > laws of physics. If an event violates the laws of physics, then it
> > > > won't happen, and that's not because something clever stopped it.
>
> > > > Likewise, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine,
> > > > because that violates some laws of physics. This doesn't mean that
> > > > something clever has stepped in to keep a perpetual motion machine
> > > > from working.
>
> > > I am not a physicist. But I heard that two connected moving blackholes
> > > with wormhole between can act as time machine. I'm not sure whether
> > > this is true, but I suppose it may be true, based on opinion of some
> > > physicists.
>
> > I'm not sure where you've heard this. What is true is that there are
> > some conjectures about whether wormholes *might* permit this, but it
> > isn't clear whether the laws of physics permit it. I can assure you,
> > though, that the conjecture is not of the sort, "We believe that the
> > laws of physics permit it, but something ELSE is keeping it from
> > happening."
>
> > > Also: AFAIK, quantum teleportation is a known fact. Can we deduce some
> > > problem solving function from quantum teleportation? I just ask, I
> > > don't know.
>
> > Quantum teleportation is a poor word used in Popular Science articles
> > to describe something that physicists call quantum entanglement. This
> > is no less interesting, and I do suggest you look into it, but what is
> > already known is that there is no faster-than-light signaling that is
> > going on in quantum entanglement. Quantum mechanics is completely
> > compatible with special relativity, and has been shown to be so since
> > 1928, when Paul Dirac specifically made a fully relativistic quantum
> > explanation for observed behavior.
>
> What prevents passing faster-than-light signaling through quantum
> entanglement? Please explain for a dilettante like me could
> understand.
>
> I have the idea (maybe stupid, I'm not a physicist) that quantum
> entanglement creates two connected worlds (including even the
> researchers which research quantum entanglement) which in a sense
> mirror each other with similar (or connected) events (that in the case
> if we split a photon into two different places).

No, it's more prosaic than that.
Before quantum mechanics, we had believe that two objects were always
independent entities, such that if a change of state of one object
caused a change of state of the other object, then the only way this
could have happened is if there had been a signal of some kind passed
between them. That signal would be limited by the speed of light.
What quantum mechanics taught us is that it is perfectly possible for
two particles to comprise a *single* quantum state. Thus a change in
state is a change in both particles in the state without a signal
exchanged at all.
Einstein believed what I described two paragraphs ago, but he also
thought up the experimental test that would determine if he was right.
The experiments started to be done shortly after his death, and so he
never found out the evidence that showed him wrong.