Information theory? I don't know about you, but that's the one I'd go to if I were looking first.

Quantum entanglement does not allow for the transmission of information, according to all experiments we've run.

That last line was very simple but so moving. Thanks for sharing.

A bit, is a storage space for a representation. By the nature of dimensions, a single dimension, be it of physical space or data can never represent change. It's an isolated spot. In order to represent change (information) you have to have a second dimension. An x, and a y.

2-bits is the minimum state for information.

>i think the theoretical answer is YES. We also have physicists who firmly believe that time travel is not just possible, but is in fact now a matter of engineering. Keep a skeptical eye on the nay-sayers. Keep an optimistic eye on those who are trying. At 14, the future is yours. Take it and run!

I prefer to keep a skeptical eye on those who are trying as well as an optimistic eye on those who say nay.

Information is not "defined as the change of states." That's simply not true.

Maybe that's what you understand it as, but it's not a standard scientific definition in any field.

[removed]

>It's not true nor false. You can't conclude one until practical tests have been made.

The hypothesis exists therefore there are scientists who at least believe in the possibility that FTL travel is possible. It's also not scientifically impossible, the laws of physics don't forbid it as such. The reason I brought up the Alcubierre Warp Drive is because the person I was commenting to originally made an absolute statement that was wrong. There is a hypothesis therefore it is a thing that exists even if it's not practical theory yet.

A bit, by definition, is the possibility of a 0 or a 1.

Now, the problemHehe is you're sending a 0 or 1 with no context.

I was attempting to keep it less technical because of the nature of the OP's question. I was never arguing that causality breaking time travel is possible. I was just refuting the other commentors absolute statements that there is no such thing. Maybe I had to be creative with my meaning when I say time travel but it's nothing my physics professor wouldn't have done.

Anything, be it a physical ship or an electromagnetic signal - radio, arriving faster than light would break causality, as it would be travelling back in time.

Someone that explains this quite well is Prof David Kipping. Watch this video: https://youtu.be/an0M-wcHw5A

It took me a couple of tries to understand the setup of the charts, but after that, it is obvious there would be a problem. Give it a try. You won't be dissapointed.

What about the Alcubierre Warp Drive?

[removed]

Honestly I will have to look into it, but as I said this was over a decade ago and on some Discovery channel or History channel documentary from when they actually still showed scientific material.

So basically this information might be massively outdated or having been disproven by now. Which was why I had mentioned the date of the information / when I learnt about it.

It could have been just a sensationalist documentary and then never retracted.

You cant exceed the speed of light. Even if you have near zero mass, the amount of energy required to get close to the speed of light goes to infinite.

Partly because Challenger was the first time something quite like that had happened in the American space program. The Apollo fire was on the ground during a training session, not even an actual launch, and by the time Columbia happened it was just a part of history that a space shuttle had already lown up once.

Then there's also the fact that the shuttles were still relatively new at the time of the Challenger disaster, and kids across the country were watching the launch live, partly due to a teacher being one of the astronauts, so it was kind of a publicity thing.

Columbia was still a tragedy and impacted many people greatly, but it just wasn't quite as unique a situation.

[removed]

Yup. That's why it's also called the speed of information . When you look at the night sky, you are looking into a mosaic of past events that happened anywhere from 4 years ago to millions of years ago. Or at least looking at extrasolar stuff. Even sunlight here on earth is 8 minutes old. :-)

The statement "there is no such thing" is unequivocally false whether or not you agree with what I said in the rest of my comment. There is such a thing, look up the Alcubierre Drive hypothesis.

So far as we know, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, a relatively new discovery/concept is called "Quantum Entanglement" in which two or more particles can become connected seemingly regardless of the space between them. In such a case, information could theoretically be transmitted instantaneously

1 bit is a single register of representation. You can have a million 0s, or a million 1s, but you cannot combine them in any way.

That's just a point, incapable of possessing information.

1-bit can never be information. Information is defined as the change of states. Not a state itself, and a 1-bit cannot change.

0000000000000000000000000

has no meaning.

111111111111111111111111111111111111

has no meaning.

00 = 0

01 = 1

That's information.

edit: Hey dumdums.... I get this is space and not philosophy of computation. But it's not a hard concept to grasp.

If you've got a single light switch. I can represent it as on or off. But by itself, it cannot represent information. On and Off is not information, it's data.

It's only a combination of ons and offs that qualify. And the moment you introduce something like iteration. Flipping the light switch on and off over time?

You introduce a new register. A new bit. It's no longer 1d data. Now it's 1d data over time. This is two dimensional. 1 bit of data, 1 bit of iteration. 2d. 2 bit, minimum for information passing.

Dammit, now I'm crying on my lunch break.

That's beautiful. Thanks for sharing!

Today is the anniversary of the Apollo 1 disaster. It's crazy that all three of NASA's disasters happened in the same calendar week.

>That's completely not true.

It's not true nor false. You can't conclude one until practical tests have been made.

Your point on time and relativity is a good one. But that should not be called time travel. People colloquially use "time travel" to denote an event that breaks causality. You are probably thinking about nonlocality and entanglement. Those do not transfer information or material in a superluminal manner.

I appreciate your distinction between hypothesis and theory. For at least the sake of our current societal ills, a hypothesis should not be taken as a truth until it becomes a scientifically accepted theory.