TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer

41 点作者 bk将近 17 年前

9 条评论

hugh将近 17 年前
Nothing new here, just a demonstration of stuff we've known for years on a somewhat more spectacular length scale.<p>The editors of Nature should know better than to put a headline like "faster-than-light information transfer" on there, since that is exactly what <i>isn't</i> going on.<p>It's a shame that the article didn't make any mention of the "many-worlds" interpretation of QM (I don't like that term myself) which as far as I know is the only explanation for these results which makes any sense.
评论 #276158 未加载
评论 #276348 未加载
评论 #276148 未加载
评论 #276136 未加载
评论 #276369 未加载
评论 #276175 未加载
评论 #276151 未加载
评论 #276079 未加载
评论 #276383 未加载
bentoner将近 17 年前
The linked article is a little confusing. Here's a better description:<p><i>Pairs of quantum-mechanically entangled particles seem to know at once what is happening to each other. Experiments show that even if this signalling is not instantaneous, it must be really, really fast.</i><p>This is from Terry Rudolph's commentary:<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/454831a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/454831a...</a><p>The Editor's summary is also good:<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/edsumm/e080814-10.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/edsumm/e0808...</a>
评论 #276399 未加载
评论 #276381 未加载
glymor将近 17 年前
Better reporting of the result:<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080813-bohms-bummed-wave-theory-needs-10000x-light-speed-to-work.html" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080813-bohms-bummed-w...</a>
评论 #276282 未加载
davidmathers将近 17 年前
From: <a href="http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html</a><p>We've learnt in the natural sciences that the key to understanding can often be found if we lift certain dividing lines in our minds. Newton showed that the apple falls to the ground according to the same laws that govern the Moon's orbit of the Earth. And with this he made the old differentiation between earthly and heavenly phenomena obsolete. Darwin showed that there is no dividing line between man and animal. And Einstein lifted the line dividing space and time. But in our heads, we still draw a dividing line between "reality" and "knowledge about reality", in other words between reality and information. And you cannot draw this line. There is no recipe, no process for distinguishing between reality and information. All this thinking and talking about reality is about information, which is why one should not make a distinction in the formulation of laws of nature. Quantum theory, correctly interpreted, is information theory.<p>And can you explain all these strange quantum phenomena conclusively with your information concept?<p>Not all of them yet, but we're working on it. With limitation it works excellently.<p>How?<p>I imagine that a quantum system can carry only a limited amount of information, which is sufficient only for a single measurement. Let's come back to the situation of two particles colliding like billiard balls, and in so doing entering a state of limitation. In terms of information theory that means that after the collision the entire information is smeared over both particles, rather than the individual particles carrying the information. And that means the entire information we have pertains to the relationship between both particles. For that reason, by measuring the first particle I can anticipate the speed of the second. But the speed of the first particle is entirely random.<p>Because the information isn't sufficient.<p>Exactly. Its randomness is ultimately a consequence of the finiteness of the information.
Eliezer将近 17 年前
Here's what's actually going on:<p><a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/bells-theorem-n.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/bells-theorem-n.html</a><p><a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/spooky-action-a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/spooky-action-a.html</a>
slackerIII将近 17 年前
So if you have a pair of entangled particles A1 &#38; A2, can the observer close to A2 quickly determine if A1 has been measured? I understand that you can't transmit information using a single pair of particles, but what if you had a pair A1 &#38; A2 and a second pair B1 &#38; B2. If one side can immediately tell that A1 was measured before B1 or vice versa, it seems like that transmits a bit.
评论 #276176 未加载
mattmaroon将近 17 年前
"In both these cases, the information is communicated at or below the speed of light, in keeping with Einstein’s axiom that nothing in the Universe can go faster."<p>Isn't it that nothing that has mass can go faster? (And technically, if I remember correctly, it's that nothing that has mass could accelerate beyond that.) That's a pretty significant distinction.
评论 #278062 未加载
robg将近 17 年前
<i>The researchers found that when each photon reached its destination, it could instantly sense its twin’s behaviour without any direct communication</i><p>Isn't the problem explaining, scientifically, <i>sense</i> and <i>direct</i> in that context? Without that explanation, I don't see how <i>without</i> carries any explanatory weight.
jmilton将近 17 年前
Ansible?
评论 #276154 未加载