ZetaX

A tokamak is nothing to be put on a plane, they are just way to big. Also, fusion power plants often cause radiation, too, e.g. from tritium. You would need a reaction that does not produce neutrons; possible, but even more complicated and less effficient. And the mach 24 is rather theoretical, that's not the speed your plane will have a chance to survive at, and I also doubt that anything that is more than just engines with small wings will be able to get that fast this way.

That changes nothing¿ How is the name of a thread influencing my claim that the naming scheme is pompous¿ Is the correctness of 1+1=2 now dependant on the thread title¿ Seriously, this is completely irrelevant. Also: SciFi does not mean future fantasy. Serious SciFi extends on the known laws of physics, never ignores them.

I do not dispute that transfering the quantum state to another atom is as good as sending that atom there (ignoring the lost state on the target and the new state on the source). I just find the naming to be too pompous, or more accurately, I see in those naming schemes one of the reasons why people have such false expectations on what is possible with quantum mechanics. That's why I would prefer "quantum transmission" or something similiar, it is still a correct description, but has not this SciFi-ish touch.

Yes, one could argue that way, but why should such pattern be the quantum state¿ And why does such a sketchy description in SciFi make it right to use such a misnomer¿

The only thing teleported there are quantum states, unless there is a version I am not aware of. It is quite weird to call a transmission of information "teleportation". The problem is simply that a lot of people think, and this is partially due to that name, that you are teleporting matter like seen in Star Trek there, and as far as I know, you are not. This has nothing to do with speed. Edit: maybe to explain myself more: Why not calling it, e.g., "quantum transmission" instead¿ (as you are sending quantum states) I claim that some of those names originated simply to sound cooler than they actually are. I can even imagine the actual reason to be getting more money and/or publicity.

No it can not. This is sadly a very common believe among non-physicists, probably due to many ill-informed pop-science authors and also due to the idiotic naming schemes like "quantum teleportation" and "spooky action at a distance", which are quite bad choices. What you can do is give each of two persons a random number in such a way that both get the same number, despite them being very very far away (essentially "instant", but that word is quite meaningless as discussed on the past pages; at least it is not bound to the speed of light). But you cannot choose the autcome, making this scheme completely useless to send information. One normally uses it to securely transmit a random key for cryptography, and as such it works well and has been tested many times already, but it cannot do more than that. You can also find a discussion on that starting at post 68 I think.

Most likely for what¿ Anyway, whatever you wanted to say has probably been discussed or debunked in the last pages.

Ok, sorry for being somewhat rude there, was just a bit annoyed by gpisic there I think.

Also to you: learn special relativity. It implies exactly those things. And it would imply sending information back in time unless you assume a completely different mechanism (those more philosophical ones discussed earlier) forbids this.

Because it is only instantaneous in your frame of reference. But nowhere is anything moving FTL. The instanteneous mentioned above is different, as it is instantaneous in a chosen reference frame, e.g. the one earth and mars. We already epxlained that "instantaneous" is ot well-defined at all; you are bashing a dead horse.

No, you are not hypothesizing. You are making stuff up that totally contradicts what we know about the universe. Learn some special relativity first.

Where am _I_ looking for such a word¿ All I did was elaborating why gpisic's statements are not even well-defined. Anyway: It was already demonstrated that instantaneous implies time travel, and the convers eis trivially true, too. So both are equally unrealistic.

No, c is not infinite. It is around 300Mm/s, which is obviously finite.

The concept of taking a picture of the entire universe "at the same time" (i.e. within one Planck time, to use your words) does not make sense: there is no valid notion of "at the same time", not even for "within the same second".

Actually, not just of "insant", but also of "FTL".

N_las already gave a proof that FTL transmissions cause time travel.

No. You can mathematically prove, assuming the axioms of special relativity, that there is no way to send information to your own past.

Point out the flaw or stop making these unscientific claims. It is getting annoying to watch this utter lack of scientificness in your posts. You are applying wishful thinking at an extreme level.

Apart from this thing looking completely unscientific (font, power point, ...), it does not contain any explaination on how this supposedly work (maybe the link does, but I will not open that PPP; give an actual paper), just a claim it does time travel. Really, don't post such crap.

Yes, you can entangle A and B and then B with C (and so on), and then forcing A into a know state will force B and therefore also C. But nowhere did you get to choose the state of A (or B or C)!

The theory actually points to this being _not_ possible. Stop making things up, what N_las said is correct. And the article you cite seems to not support what you said, either, from what I can pull from the abstract.

Sources please. To the best of my knowledge any neuron (probably even the ion pumps) is way to big for such an effect to be relevant. I have heard that before. And that this result was quite bogus. For the critics, just take a look at the Wikipedia article.

I agree with most of what you said, but want to comment on this part: Humans are indeed too complex to have, at the current level of technology, any chance to have their behaviour be predicted accurately. But the point in determinism is not the possibility to predict, but the fact that it is fully predetermined. This does in no way imply that we can know the result in advance, but if we furthermore assume that the determinism is "analytic", i.e. describable by finite laws (think: clockwork), then we at least could in theory, assuming we gather enough knowledge and computational power. And if it would not be analytic but still deterministic, we could try to make a perfect duplicate of a brain, and both would react exactly the same to everything. And now the natural question is: are humans deterministic, and if, are they analytic¿ I would answer both with "yes up to absurdely small probabilities", as so far no one has found any scientific evidence that the brain is doing any more than following the same chemical and physical laws as everything else. And up to the best of our knowledge we can actually describe those laws with finite words, at least up to very very small uncertainties from a) quantum physics, all our laws just being very good approximations.

"Behind" is simple the wrong word. It will simply be different, having its own culture.

No. A lack of free will does not imply such a thing and this argument is quite old, quite bad, and has been discussed a lot already. What I wrote is mostly factual (there have been some studies that test this determinism), and the part that is not is mostly just assuming that there is no magical transcendental effect that deviates brain physics from the physics in the rest of the universe. At the worst, I could just get away with "my lack of free will dictates me to still put them in jail"/"still lets me act as if I have one". You can easily find better ones (mostly based on incentives and/or consequences and such) ones, though. Edit: Also, ninja'd by N_las.