Does information move faster than the speed of light?
>>8169782
only when my dick is transmitting information to your mom
>>8169787
Ooooooooooioioooooh
>>8169782
How much its one information?
More than two lights?
>>8169787
True, for small objects in the quantum realm the laws of special relativity do not need to hold.
>>8169793
Ooooooooooooiaoooooo
>>8169782
information requires a medium to be transmitted through and the fastest is light or electrons bumping into eachother so no
>>8169832
this checks
>>8169832
You are saying that information can not exist without an observer? I don't think that's true.
>>8169832
What about quantum entanglement?
>>8169782
No. Anything travelling faster than light violates causality.
>>8169843
bum p
>>8169877
That's more or less true depending on how your post is interpreted. The speed of light in a vacuum happens to be the universal speed limit for causality. When OP talks of information, he's really asking about causality. If for example you want to send a message to someone on the other side of the world, the absolute fastest that could be sent is light speed because we're talking about cause and effect (causality). "Things" can definitely travel faster than the speed of light and causality will not be violated. For instance, there is no limitation on the phase or group velocity of light (or sound) and these can even be negative (wrt the wave vector--see negative index metamaterials). The speed of energy propagation (see Poynting vector) DOES have this limitation.
>>8169803
Anon didn't just get burned, he got carbonized.
>>8169782
>entanglement theory
everything is already connected.
"communicating information" can be instantaneous and would not require 'moving' in the sense that speed of light limitations apply
>>8169877
>causality
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150324/ncomms7665/full/ncomms7665.html
>>8169892
It cant transfer information.
>>8169782
At the given moment, no. Information will only move as fast as electricity right now, although light based communication of information is being developed. However, we can go even further. A while back we discovered some sort of "twin electron" phenomena found in diamond structures. Apparently two electrons in a different but identical structure can be moved, causing the other to move at exactly the same time. No transfer of anything, just purely instantaneous motion tied between the two electrons. There also happens to be no delay or affect on distance; the affect can be observed no matter how far or close the electrons are. There's a name to this phenomena, and if someone could remind me of what it is, I could go further in depth. The reason as to why I being this up is because it could potentially create instantaneous computer communications systems, where one computer mimics another exactly as the other computer receives input. This would allow us to communicate instantly, from one galaxy to another even. It would be technically the fastest thing in existence, being faster than the speed of void.
>>8169839
I think that true. Information only exists in an observer.
>>8169782
why is everyone so dependent of the "speed of light"? why don't we measure by the speed of sound? they're both equally retarded
as for the original question; consciousness "travels" faster than light
>>8170170
It can if you assume realism
>>8169782
No. Without a several page thesis, no. Information is abstract. Light is not. Apples to oranges friend.
>>8169793
THAT SCIENTIFIC BURN
it is now generally accepted that entangled particles respond consistently to the state of the other, when measured, instantaneously, wherever they are in space (and time!) and thus violate the "speed limit" of light speed. This effect however, cannot be used to transmit other information faster than light speed... for some reason... wikipedia that shit or something.
>>8170589
Entanglement doesn't involve transmitting information though
>>8170200
Are you trying to communicate the idea of Cooper pairs? If so, nearly everything you just said is wrong.
>>8170408
The speed of light is the universal speed limit (causality). The fact that light travels at this speed is a consequence of special relativity and not the other way around. So really that isn't a very good name.
To take your question further, the speed of light in a vacuum is a very natural choice because it is a fundamental constant.
Consciousness does not travel faster than light. In fact, it travels much slower in terms of action potentials in the neurons.
>>8170600
... some may say that one particle has received information about the collapsed state of the other instantaneously, but yeah, its a stretch. The terms break down, as the pair is more correctly described as one quantum object in the first place. I just brought it up because its relevant to the discussion
>>8170408
Not sure if trolling or just genuinely retarded
>>8169793
>True, for small objects in the quantum realm the laws of special relativity do not need to hold.
Yeah, but your mom's mass significantly distorts spacetime anyway...
>>8171336
Yo mamma so fat, that her mass causes gravitational lensing of the brightest objects to her exterior.
>>8169782
What the hell is that in the picture?
>>8171336
>>8171370
>>8170607
Correct him then. I was interested until you fucked him up. Although I must say, it looks like he's looking more into quantum entanglement, or at least an aspect of it.
>>8170200
>speed of void.
whoa, what level spell is that
>>8173685
It's an anti-spell. Only a few of the greatest dark wizards are powerful enough to harness the forces of negative potential and transcend.
>>8169782
Non-random information does not. Random information via quantum entanglement can.
>>8169791
lel
Light travels at the speed of information.
>>8169782
define information
Anybody else here think this is just a jazzier twist on "A tree falls in the woods..."?
The stimulus {sound} being able to exist independently, or not, from a receptor {ear}?
Define information; is it A) the message once comprehended by whatever audience or
B) the phenomenon existing without observation?
If A), depends on the assessment process of the audience [memory/discovery/realization, etc.],
if B), how instantaneous is the phenomenon [rock remains rock vs. a sun exploding]?
