At 12:42 PM 10/14/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>04301c15333$b4c918c0$38175e0c@flrjs>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>John Clark wrote:
> >
> > Adrian Tymes <wingcat@pacbell.net>
> >
> > > And here is where our information diverges. If, indeed,
> modifying the
> > > spin is impossible for Alice, then you are right: that method won't
> > > work. If it is possible to modify the spin, then your argument falls
> > > apart on that statement.
> >
> > If it was possible to change the spin at will of an entangled particle
> without
> > destroying the delicate entanglement with its twin then yes, I could indeed
> > communicate faster than light. If that were possible I could do even
> communicate
> > with the past. If that were possible I could send you a reply to your
> post before
> > you had even written it .
>
>How could you communicate with the past. Causality is not violated even
>when light speed limits are in entanglement.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last part of that last sentence: "Light
speed limits are in entanglement." I didn't think physical constants like
c, permitivity, and permeability could be entangled.
Anyway, I can see a way to communicate with the past using instantaneous
communication. First, send the message to your past self to a friendly
probe/alien/space craft Very Far Away. Next, have this second party change
their velocity be a Good Deal. This will change what is considered
"simultaneous" with them. (Actually, I believe non-local simultaneity is no
longer a valid concept because of this, much like absolute frames of
reference.) They can then be simultaneous with you past self, and can
relay the message to him or her.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT