Moving faster than "instantly"?

[evenheathen]

(31-08-2013 08:03 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Faster than 'instant' is by definition travelling back in time and violating causality (hell, faster than lightspeed is as well). This has never been observed.

However, travelling 'back in time' is one way of describing or conceptualising the behaviour of virtual anti/particle pairs. It's a useful conceit there, but it's not applicable to any other situation.

Yeah. That's what it was. Thanks!

[earmuffs]

No. That's like someone having no oranges and than asking if it's possible for that person to have less oranges.
No.

[Chas]

(31-08-2013 10:32 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  No. That's like someone having no oranges and than asking if it's possible for that person to have less oranges.
No.

Yes, a person who has no oranges and owes oranges to others has less than no oranges.

[I Am]

(31-08-2013 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(31-08-2013 10:32 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  No. That's like someone having no oranges and than asking if it's possible for that person to have less oranges.
No.

Yes, a person who has no oranges and owes oranges to others has less than no oranges.

I'm with Muffs on this one. The count of oranges hasn't changed, between having none, and having none and also having a social obligation.

If the oranges owed could be counted as "oranges," we could create an interest-bearing debt account of oranges, and increase the number of oranges by just waiting for the interest to metastasize.

Then, a person to whom the oranges are owed could make loans against their future expectations of oranges, and receive cash or goods for them, all based on some made-up orange deficit assigned to our hapless orange-ower.

What kind of insane farce would that be?

[cjlr]

(31-08-2013 07:11 PM)I Am Wrote:  I'm with Muffs on this one. The count of oranges hasn't changed, between having none, and having none and also having a social obligation.

If the oranges owed could be counted as "oranges," we could create an interest-bearing debt account of oranges, and increase the number of oranges by just waiting for the interest to metastasize.

Then, a person to whom the oranges are owed could make loans against their future expectations of oranges, and receive cash or goods for them, all based on some made-up orange deficit assigned to our hapless orange-ower.

What kind of insane farce would that be?

Good job conflating the simple abstract concepts of debt and interest with the very specific monetary policies of the United States.

[Mike]

So, the speed beyond instantly is absolutely impossible. Is that what you guys mean?

[cjlr]

(31-08-2013 07:34 PM)Mike Wrote:  So, the speed beyond instantly is absolutely impossible. Is that what you guys mean?

Yes in a technical sense, because that isn't 'speed', it's time travel.

And yes in a broader sense, because there is no evidence or theory of such ever occurring.

[earmuffs]

(31-08-2013 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(31-08-2013 10:32 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  No. That's like someone having no oranges and than asking if it's possible for that person to have less oranges.
No.

Yes, a person who has no oranges and owes oranges to others has less than no oranges.

Debt is just a promise to pay someone something you don't currently have but will have in the future. It's not materialistic, it's just a promise.



Had a thought. If there are 3 atoms reacting with each other, Atom A B and C.
They all react with each other at the same time.
Atom B is suppose to transfer 1 proton to Atom C. And Atom A is suppose to transfer 1 proton to Atom B. If Atom A transfer 1 proton to Atom C directly, assuming that the transfer of protons is instant for simplicity, is that transfer of 1 proton from Atom A to Atom C faster than instant? (Because it's suppose to pass through Atom B and than to C but it lands on a community chest card and goes directly to Go, or Atom C in this case.).



Also, another question about instant. If something is instant than does that mean it can be anywhere? A quantum leap is the smallest distance something can travel correct? If you can instantly travel that distance than you can you instantly do it again, than you can instantly be anywhere you want.. instantly.
So if there is something out there that is instant than it must be anywhere and/or nowhere and/or everywhere?

[evenheathen]

(01-09-2013 12:29 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  So if there is something out there that is instant than it must be anywhere and/or nowhere and/or everywhere?

This is what I understand of quantum physics. Yes.

[Hafnof]

Two entangled quantum states can come to an agreement "instantly" despite being a distance apart that light speed cannot cross in the measured time. No one can really say why

Faster than instantly, though? Well, Feynman diagrams[2] need to account for uncertainty in time and particles travelling backwards in time with similar spooky effects on causality... so perhaps?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram