| ? posted by scary_jeff |
That still doesn't allow for the ping you actually get; 350+ ?  |
yeah, it does, when you consider that the only confirmed fiber optics is in the water.. the rest is apt to be good old copper.. the bottlenecks at both ends may be enough to shoot the pings through the roof..
i am not sure, but at least around here, fiber optics is more rare than copper..
[addsig]
| ? posted by scary_jeff |
| The signal travels at the same speed through copper. I guess the main carriers are optimised for bandwidth and not latency... damned lazy carriers! |
/me supposes you are right, if copper was as good as optics, why would they be spending millions to replace all the old wires.. its got to be capacity, not speeds thats driving the idea.
my fields of experience, do not encompass fiber optics, so i am only guessing.
[addsig]
What you are describing sounds like a special case of entanglement. Two particles can be "entangled" so that their spin states (and every other property I think) are always identical. If you change one, then you instantaneously change the other however far away they are from each other. Unfortunately no information can be conveyed. You cannot know what the state of either particle is unless you make an observation, and any observation changes the state of the particle. For example, imagine that you and I each had one of an entangled pair of particles. I could change the state of mine however I want, and yours would change to match, but you would have no way of measuring the change. Whenever you make a measurement you cause the superposition of states to collapse into one, but you can't know what the state was before you made your observation. hence you cannot detect a change in state and no information can be conveyed.
In short, it is impossible to send information faster-than-light according to relativity and quantum mechanics (unless you have wormhole). If anyone ever figures out a way to do so, it won't simply be a cool technology, it will mean the utter collapse of 100 years of physical theory.
I don't know anything about quantum computing, that said however, you are misunderstanding me because I didn't explain it adequately.
Even if you are talking about something like spin, which is either up or down, it still doesn't work. There is infinite uncertainty in the state of the particle before you make a measurement, and you cannot conclude that what you observed is different form it's previous state. Although your observation does cause the superposition to collapse, there is no way to predict which state it will collapse into. if you could do that the uncertainty would be meaningless. The history of the particle has no effect on the future outcome. It's like flipping a coin. While it is spinning in the air there is a great deal of uncertainty which side is up. as soon as you catch it to find out, this "superposition" collapses into one of two states, but just because it was tails last time does not imply that it will be heads this time. Over a long series of measurements you'd be right: it lands tails just as often as it lands heads, but that has no bearing on the outcome of an individual toss.
I think you are right that quantum computing relies on entanglement in some way, but I think the difference is that somehow the observation step is removed. I would also venture to guess that there is some quirk of the process that limits everything to light-speed.
*as the topic just advanced beyond most of the pit memberbase*
[addsig]
| ? posted by Orpheus |
|
*as the topic just advanced beyond most of the pit memberbase* |
Not even 
Alot of the stuff they're talking about is much more easily explained in Mostly Harmless 
[addsig]| ? posted by Orpheus |
| blue, you are not endearing yourself upon me by rubbing my nose in my lack of comprehension |
It's a joke man
| ? posted by G.Ballblue |
|
It's a joke man |
ok then, but.. you have alienated a large percentage of this community, you cannot blame me when i misunderstand a joke.. i have learned the hard way that a smiley can be used as a weapon, its not always a sigh of joking..
sorry then, my bad.
[addsig]Jef - I'm glad I could explain it clearly. I'm not always that sucessfull.
| ? posted by Dred_furst |
| well, another good example is one with a cat in a box. you put a cat in a box with a vial of cyanide. the box is locked and sealed, and nothing can be measured of it. also the cat can breathe so you can flaw this. also the cat will stay alive for an infinite amount of time if it doesnt stand on the vial of cyanide. Once we seal the box, we dont know whether the cat is alive or dead. So we say it has two superpositions. one where the cat is alive, and one where the cat is dead. It is both alive and dead. When we open the box with the cat in, we see if the cat is alive or dead. So the Superposition collapses. |
Yes, good old Schordinger...The quantum physics book that was used at my university has a living cat on the cover and a dead cat on the back. Brilliant cover art, but I've never felt that that was a thought experiment very conducive to comprehension. It seems more designed to confuse than to clarify.
| ? quote: |
|
? posted by G.Ballblue It's a joke man ok then, but.. you have alienated a large percentage of this community, you cannot blame me when i misunderstand a joke.. i have learned the hard way that a smiley can be used as a weapon, its not always a sigh of joking.. sorry then, my bad. |
