Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-23 Thread Andrew Crystall
On 22 Jan 2007 at 20:04, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > Entangled photons. > > > > Certainly FTL. Instant? Um > > Entangled photons can't be used to transmit information faster than > light. They cannot transmit "information", but their behavior in gross itself can be informative.

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-22 Thread Richard Baker
Robert C said: > Unfortunately, the argument, as I remember it, is that that you can > only measure the direction (say) of a photon after its collapse. It > could be `up' (i.e., an arbitrary direction) or down (i.e., another > arbitrary direction, but 180 degrees in the opposite direction). You

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-22 Thread Robert J. Chassell
> You can postulate information transfer faster than light, but > that is not yet seen in reality. Entangled photons. Do entangled photons actually provide for information transfer faster than the speed of light? I used to think so, but was persuaded by discussion on this list that t

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-22 Thread Richard Baker
Andrew said: > Entangled photons. > > Certainly FTL. Instant? Um Entangled photons can't be used to transmit information faster than light. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-22 Thread Andrew Crystall
On 20 Jan 2007 at 22:10, Robert J. Chassell wrote: > You can postulate information transfer faster than light, but that is > not yet seen in reality. Entangled photons. Certainly FTL. Instant? Um AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/ma

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-22 Thread Doug
As much as we all love the idea of starships racing across the galaxy a la Star Trek, I think that the future of space travel is more likely to involve nano-probes that can travel at close to light speed. They would be next to impossible for us to detect and would probably avoid direct contact

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-22 Thread Robert J. Chassell
Dan Minet may be right in suggesting there is a ... good reason that advanced civilizations do not build Von Neumann machines to explore the galaxy. What would keep humans from setting up a radio transmitter that could carry information a thousand light years or a radio receiver that is s

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-20 Thread Robert J. Chassell
Charlie Stross, in his novel `Accelerando', points out that intelligences who think faster than us wait, subjectively, longer for radio messages to go back and forth than we. If they think 100 times as fast, an 8 year wait (which does not quite simulate a radio message to and from the nearest sta

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-19 Thread Gwern Branwen
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Original Message: > - > From: Gwern Branwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:39:06 -0500 > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Re: New take on Fermi Paradox > > > >&

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-19 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Original Message: - From: Gwern Branwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:39:06 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: New take on Fermi Paradox >This seems way too pessimistic, or I'm missing something. If there are >only 8^2 probes (each one builds

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-19 Thread Gwern Branwen
William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1993006,00.html > > "So much space, so little time: why aliens haven't found us yet > > > Ian Sample, science correspondent > Thursday January 18, 2007 > The Guardian > > It ranks among the most enduring mys

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-19 Thread Charlie Bell
On 19/01/2007, at 10:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote: > > It is from the Grauniad, a newspaper renowned throughout the world > for its typographical errors.. "Because of a printing error, today's Guardian is full of water..." Charlie GCU The Day Today

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-19 Thread William T Goodall
On 19 Jan 2007, at 04:24, David Hobby wrote: > William T Goodall wrote: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1993006,00.html >> >> "So much space, so little time: why aliens haven't found us yet >> >> >> Ian Sample, science correspondent > ... >> Using a computer simulation of our own ga

Re: New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-18 Thread David Hobby
William T Goodall wrote: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1993006,00.html > > "So much space, so little time: why aliens haven't found us yet > > > Ian Sample, science correspondent ... > Using a computer simulation of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, Rasmus > Bjork, a physicist at t

New take on Fermi Paradox

2007-01-18 Thread William T Goodall
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1993006,00.html "So much space, so little time: why aliens haven't found us yet Ian Sample, science correspondent Thursday January 18, 2007 The Guardian It ranks among the most enduring mysteries of the cosmos. Physicists call it the Fermi paradox af