barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (08/15/85)
[]
Some time back, I read about (or perhaps saw on TV) how it might be
possible to build a computer that operated literally faster-than-light by
making use of quantum effects. It stated that, under supercool conditions,
macroscopic sized chunks of some superconducting materials would behave as a
single quantum, and state changes (spin or charge or something; don't
remember) would occur *simultaneously* in all parts of these "chunks", without
regard to lightspeed limitations. These state changes then could be used to
send information through a machine using such macroscopic quanta at velocities
greater than light.
My problem is this: I don't recall where I heard about this, and even
though I have a general impression that it was a respectable source, the whole
thing sounds dubious to me.
Has anyone else heard of this? And if not, are there any physicists
out there who could tell this layman if such a thing is theoretically
possible? It sure *sounds* like a violation of special relativity.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barrystekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (08/16/85)
> macroscopic sized chunks of some superconducting materials would behave as a > single quantum, and state changes (spin or charge or something; don't > remember) would occur *simultaneously* in all parts of these "chunks", without > regard to lightspeed limitations. ... > It sure *sounds* like a violation of special relativity. Again the same old problem - a process which can cause simutlaneous events at A and B does not imply that the process can be used to send messages from A to B instantaneously. Using widely accepted physical "laws", it can been PROVEN for the GENERAL CASE that communication can occur no faster than the speed of light. Applications of the same physical "laws" to test specific cases which violate the general theorem MUST be in error. If I write a computer program which sums a set of positive numbers and it gives a negative answer the program MUST be in error because it can be PROVED that the sum is positive. The tie in with roulette: Every day some joker somewhere invents a betting "system" which will win at roulette. The system usually relies on some complex pattern of bets with a combined winning return "greater" than 50%. After the system has been widely used is it realized that the return on each bet was calculated incorrectly and is actually <50%. The point is that NO roulette betting pattern can beet the wheel because they are all linear combinations of losing bets. So roulette and special relativity share a common characteristic: people are always trying to find special cases which violate the general case. Jim