From: Mike Russell on
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:40:09 -0700, greysky wrote:

> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q8qdnTzhVpdfgCjWnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com...
>> NATURE: Atomic Clocks Use Quantum Timekeeping
>> Entanglement could make state-of-the-art clocks more precise
>> http://cl.exct.net/?qs=e7ed5d30f317a284f1712767b3e2b6b38e9e4d1c240e0d478d3aa1c1cad8ffe7
>>
> Remember even a busted clock is right once a day in at least one
> universe...

If time is quantized, even a wrong clock may never be right.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
From: Sam Wormley on
On 4/3/10 4:22 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

>
> Quantum entanglement does. However the only way to verify it is with
> normal lightspeed communications. The take-away from this is that if we
> remove the need to verify the communications, then we can communicate
> faster than light.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
I think your use of "communicate" is poorly conceived. Arbitrary
communication cannot occur faster than the speed of light.
From: J. J. Lodder on
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> NATURE: Atomic Clocks Use Quantum Timekeeping
> >>> Entanglement could make state-of-the-art clocks more precise
> >>> http://cl.exct.net/?qs=e7ed5d30f317a284f1712767b3e2b6b38e9e4d1c240e0d478d3
aa
> > 1c1cad8ffe7
> >> Actually, shouldn't quantumly-entangled atomic clocks give inaccurate
> >> results, as they communicate with each other faster than the speed of light
?
> >
> > Nothing communicates faster than the speed of light.
> >
> > Clocks are no exception,
>
> Quantum entanglement does. However the only way to verify it is with
> normal lightspeed communications. The take-away from this is that if we
> remove the need to verify the communications, then we can communicate
> faster than light.

Sure, no problem, if you don't communicate,

Jan