2 ms·
Yeah, it does not seem to matter how unreliable it is. If you send some some particles every time event occurs and occasionally they are received, even a singl
by akvadrako 6y ago
Yeah, it does not seem to matter how unreliable it is.
If you send some some particles every time event occurs and occasionally they are received, even a single detection now gives the receiver information: that event occurred.
If the particles were sent FTL, you can now setup the standard causality paradoxes.
- WJW 6y agoAll of the usual caveats from information theory apply though. In particular, the noisiness of the channel plays a huge part in Shannons equation for information capacity. In this case in particular, if you receive no particles you know that the event either did not happen _or_ it did happen and you failed to detect the particle. If you do receive a particle you know that either the event happened at least once _or_ it did not happen and you have a false positive from your detector _or_ there was a particle but it was introduced by quantum noise. To make sure what actually happened you would need more signal, more particles per transmitted bit. However, it is entirely possible that this reduction in effective bit rate will slow down actual bit rates back down to "normal" subluminal speeds.
- drdeca 6y agoBut isn't whether it is superluminal a question of the latency, not the bandwidth? (Where, the bit rate, bits/second, would, I think, be a measure of bandwidth. I could be wrong.)