Can Time Travel Be Linked To Space?

[fafalone]

In quantum computing, entangled particles are identical over large distances... is the propagation of this synchronization faster than c, and if not (or even if), what is the mechanism of communication?

[Raider]

Can we predict and measure the amount of energy that should be released when you split the atom?

 

That could verify c as the correct variable in (e^2) = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, right?

[fafalone]

Can't measure it with current technology, although one day that may be an interesting verification or refute of Einstein's equation.

[Raider]

How would you measure it? Can it be done in the forseeable future?

[fafalone]

Well energy alters the state of what it runs in to, so if you had a very dense array of particles surrounded a matter anti-matter annihilation in theory you might be able to come pretty close to experimentally observing what is predicted by the formula.

[baigligan]

Originally posted by chris

I do not know if this can happen. But I was thinking and this came to mind:

 

Light travels at ~3x10^8m/s. (thanks faf). Now if we could get a strong enough telescope (or a transponder, if we were to recieve any tv images) far away enough earth. Would it be possible to look into the telescope and view the images from earth from the past? Or is it impossible?

 

 

if we are far away from earth where are at this moment rays of light wich abandonet earth (for exsample 400 years ago-that mean we should be 400 light years away) we should be able to see the 400 years old earth image ,but the rays will be so weak so dispersed that noone detector should measure them.the big bang is at about 12 000 000 000 years ago but we still can measure the rays of biggest explosion that we can image.thats because of power of explosion.we can see galaxys only 12 000 000 000 light years away just because other light still isnt arived(if there is somethimg beyond lighting to us)

[Sayonara]

Baigligan has a good point.

 

The resolution you'd get (assuming it all worked) would be pitifull.

[greg1917]

Well even looking at the stars with the naked eye involves this priciple because the sky at night is the cosmos millions of years ago due to the time lag in the light arriving at earth - thus looking at things extreme distances away will show you the universe in its (relative) infancy.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Raider

I have a question. Light always moves at 3x10E8 relative to any reference frame, right?

 

If A is moving at 3x10E7 light would be moving 3x10E7 + 3x10E8 relative to A. Couldn't B then accelerate to speeds in excess of 3x10E8 since the light relative to A is moving faster than that? (You'd still be slower than the light...)

 

Light moves at 299792458m/s (in a vacuum) compared to the velocity of any reference frame.

 

The equation for calculating recession (and indeed approach speeds) is as follows, where a is the velocity of one object, b is the object moving away from it (or vice versa, it doesnt matter), and c is the speed of light in a vacuum

 

recession speed of (a,b) = (a+b)/(1+ ab/c^2)