Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

Rxke · 2004-08-07 16:54:30

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.ph … iology.net

...Leave your power-generator at home...

Comments?

Free Spirit · 2004-08-07 18:04:12

This would seem to imply that information could be sent at faster than light speeds which makes me suspicious. I'm not a physicist, but doesn't quantum entanglement just deal with the spin states of the sub-atomic particles? I'm not sure putting an external stimuli on one particle is necessarily going to cause the entangled particle to react in a way that can cause propulsion. I don't know, something just seems fishy about this. I'll remain open minded though.

Morris · 2004-08-08 13:09:45

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.ph … iology.net
...Leave your power-generator at home...
Comments?

This article is very exciting. First because it reports the experiments in quantum teleportation which have actually succeeded, and second because it sends us into a realm of possibilities which actually provide a chance for a real spacefaring civilization.

The problems with our current approach to space travel were very succinctly put forth by science fiction author James Blish in the 1950s. In the first volume (They Shall Have Stars of his Cities in Flight series, he has the hero (a Congressman no less) point out the fundamental problems of space flight as seemed practical then (and almost identical to what we have today). The first is that we can't travel fast enough and the second is that we don't live long enough. Without FTL travel and extremely long lives such a civilization cannot be supported.

Quantum teleportation may make take us a significant step towards the first. The second appears to be largely ignored by the space program, where there is a long tradition that only the most minimal resources are given to space medicine.
And perhaps for good reason at present. Only people in superb physical health and condition are chosen to be astronauts and the spacefaring lifetime of an astronaut is so short that, apparently, chronic conditions rarely appear to make an issue of it. With the first long-term missions/settlements this will change. But the basic research needs to be going on right now. Maybe it is, just outside the radar of the space community. Anybody know?

In any event, I am interested in anything with a foundation of credible research behind it which addresses either of these problems.

Thanks for sharing.

Rxke · 2004-08-08 14:20:10

Free Spirit: good point about max. speed. Come on, physicists, what's wrong with this?????

Morris, don't want to take this off-topic, but ESA wants to do experiments with 'wintersleep' and slowed-down metabolism... And there are longetivity researches aplenty, even prizes (longest lived mouse...)
Maybe you start a topic about this? You are right, there's not much talk about these things... (not in relation with spaceflight anyway...)

ant of stargrail · 2004-08-08 15:46:43

The first is that we can't travel fast enough and the second is that we don't live long enough.

When we journey into space we will no longer be orbiting the Sun, time is marked by Earth rotations round the Sun.

If one was to leave the current orbit of the Sun and move towards another solar system, going away from the Sun directly, how does the body know to age?

It's annual clock is simply not there.

Ant

Morris · 2004-08-08 17:54:43

Morris, don't want to take this off-topic, but ESA wants to do experiments with 'wintersleep' and slowed-down metabolism... And there are longetivity researches aplenty, even prizes (longest lived mouse...)

Thanks for info on ESA. That's the kind of info I was hoping for.

Maybe you start a topic about this? You are right, there's not much talk about these things... (not in relation with spaceflight anyway...)

You are right. I will open a thread under life support.

Morris · 2004-08-08 18:07:49

If one was to leave the current orbit of the Sun and move towards another solar system, going away from the Sun directly, how does the body know to age?
It's annual clock is simply not there.

Ant

Hi, Ant. Well, it would seem that aging would primarily be related to irreversible biochemical/physiological changes which go on all the time regardless of where we are. But certainly an important part of daily life is the rhythms of light/dark due to Earth's rotation on its axis, and I'm sure many other factors like the length of the year. I think these are called circadian rhythms and I suspect that there would be some important issues on how these react to microgravity, ambient light, activity levels, etc. as we get away from Earth. Some of this MUST have already been investigated. Why don't we poke around the NASA and ESA sites to see what's there.

And let's post in Gennaro's "Long term health effects" thread in the Life Support forum.

BTW, are you a student? If so, what level?

ant of stargrail · 2004-08-09 01:12:49

...circadian rhythms and I suspect that there would be some important issues on how these react to microgravity, ambient light, activity levels, etc. as we get away from Earth. Some of this MUST have already been investigated.

http://www.ortho.lsumc.edu/Faculty/Mari … html]Frank Brown as a founding investigator regarding Circadian rhythms. And http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/v … 05-2.html] Joe Miller for a martian 'radioactivity footprint'.

BTW I'm 43 but I suppose one could say I am a student with a hobby studying the organisation of alphabets, number, time and shape. I retired from a 20 year career with Londons Tube Network, London Underground due to illness. I have a hobby trying to find what surrounds nothing on the smallest scale and its primary applications.

Ant

SBird · 2004-08-09 10:49:52

I'm dubious. From my understanding of the EPR effect, it's not so much the transmission of a quantum state but a consolidation of a quantum state. Meaning that both of the particles have to be quantum indeterminant and that they both choose one of the states upon observation of one of the particles.

I think that the author just has a poor understanding of EPR.

Rxke · 2004-08-09 11:31:00

Thanks.

I have some issues, too: say (for the sake of argument) it is possible.
Good. Now you got a tank somewhere in outer space, and a tank 'at home'... How do you get the right atoms at the right place in that craft?

Imagine exciting some atoms X 'at home,' and BOOM goes the tank (pressure) in outer space, because the entangled atoms X_entangled were nowhere near the ion thruster grids, but somewhere at the back of the tank... Xenon atoms, as gas (or liquid?) are kinda hard to tell where to go, no?

(verrrrry fuzzy explanation of what I mean, hope this makes some kind of sense...)

You could somewhat solve that problem, by shooting 'labeled' packages of Xenon to the plates, and with the right timing 'at home' excite them... But how you're going to be sure the timing is 100% accurate? Too late, no big deal, some xenon lost to space, doing nothing... Too early... BOOM...goes your 'packet-delivery-machinery'
Time dilation, transmission delays, etc will cause major headaches. And again: what's the speed of entanglement? Lightspeed?

Morris · 2004-08-09 12:53:33

http://www.ortho.lsumc.edu/Faculty/Mari … html]Frank Brown as a founding investigator regarding Circadian rhythms. And http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/v … 05-2.html] Joe Miller for a martian 'radioactivity footprint'.

Thanks info. Once I read about the oyster experiment, I recognized that I had heard about it before.

BTW I'm 43 but I suppose one could say I am a student with a hobby studying the organisation of alphabets, number, time and shape. I retired from a 20 year career with Londons Tube Network, London Underground due to illness. I have a hobby trying to find what surrounds nothing on the smallest scale and its primary applications.

Well, I'm having a hard time with the concept of "what surrounds nothing" on the smallest scale. Are you talking about things like dark matter? In any event, it sounds like you're making an interesting life.

Unless you're planning to publish on it or something, what kinds of mental structures do alphabets, number, time, and shape have in common? If you answer, would you consider a new thread?

Morris · 2004-08-09 13:05:33

And again: what's the speed of entanglement? Lightspeed?

Do you mean the speed with which the particles are entangled at the beginning of the process or the speed at which one entangled particle reacts to an action on its entangled "partner". I was under the impression that the latter is instantaneous, universe-wide. If so, it would *seem* to make solution of your synchronization problems easier.

At least one science fiction book I read, sorry don't remember the name, made the latter assumption. In that book, based in a far-flung, possibly even galactic, civilization critical communications were transmitted by manipulating packets of entangled particles. VERY EXPENSIVE, but sometimes worth it.

Kenshin · 2004-08-09 13:16:04

I'm just a Junior in a undergrad physics program, so don't take this as Holy Writ, but I'll try and answer this:

This would seem to imply that information could be sent at faster than light speeds which makes me suspicious. I'm not a physicist, but doesn't quantum entanglement just deal with the spin states of the sub-atomic particles?

If I remember correctly, quantum entanglement is distance-independant. What happens to one particle happens to the other, regardless of distance, and at the same, um, time. (now we're getting wierd because of different rates of time at different speeds, but bear with me). Your point about the spin states is good, but honestly I don't know if it only applies to spin states or if it also applies to other things. However if it was just spin states I think it could still be used at the very least as FTL communication, even if everything else in the article is bunk.

Anyway... it's still currently just sci-fi, but who knows, this could be the next big thing. Or maybe it'll go the way of cold fusion.

Now the real question is, and the question nobody can answer right now it seems, is how long does this entanglement last and will it actually last when being excited constantly, as described in this article?

I certainly can't answer that, and I would be pretty skeptical of anyone who told me they could answer right now as well.

This is one of those "wait and see but don't get your hopes up" sort of things.

Euler · 2004-08-09 13:59:07

I'm just a Junior in a undergrad physics program, so don’t take this as Holy Writ

Ditto

However if it was just spin states I think it could still be used at the very least as FTL communication, even if everything else in the article is bunk.

You would think so, but most physicists say that it can’t be used for FTL communication. I think that the problem is that you cant know when it is time to look at it or whether it has been acted upon until you get a light speed transmission from the person with the other entangled particle. The inability of this to be used for FTL communications is actually a good thing, because FTL communication would lead to causality violations...

Now the real question is, and the question nobody can answer right now it seems, is how long does this entanglement last and will it actually last when being excited constantly, as described in this article?

I think that it lasts until one of the particles are observed, basically until they interact with other particles. I don't think that it can be used to excite particles, just to synchronize their quantum spin states.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-09 14:45:29

I think that it lasts until one of the particles are observed, basically until they interact with other particles. I don't think that it can be used to excite particles, just to synchronize their quantum spin states.

Interesting.

Here's an example of a possible means for getting energy out of spin state transitions.

http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … ...5;t=130

Bell's Inequality (which I think applies to entanglement... could be wrong) simply predicts better than 50/50 odds of corellation for spin states, not exact corellation, so there ought to be an efficiency loss involved. But if Hafnium 178 can be continually reset to spin state m=2 using quantum entanglement (and then later excited to release that energy), it would be the same as transferring net energy by entanglement, even if the excitation required to release it occured on the other end.

Don't expect everything you put in on the ground to come out at the ship, but there could be enough to run a rocket engine.

ant of stargrail · 2004-08-09 15:18:51

Well, I'm having a hard time with the concept of "what surrounds nothing" on the smallest scale. Are you talking about things like dark matter?
Unless you're planning to publish on it or something, what kinds of mental structures do alphabets, number, time, and shape have in common? If you answer, would you consider a new thread?

Give you a bit about number and alphabet.

The math I study is a three dimentional math. It can be represented on paper, but the medium is difficult and there are so many different ways of seeing.

Imagine a Cube made of 27 equal cubes. This is a 3x3x3 Cube. 26 are visable on the ouside, the one in the middle is there or is it?, it cannot be seen, this is the http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4.html]26 dimentions plus boson of superstring theory. It just so happens to be the number of letters in the English Alphabet. Thats 26 letters plus the space in between words.

However if you make a shape out of 10 cubes (1+2+3+4) one can get a 3 cubetetracolumn and 3x3 grid with two in the middle and 8 surrounding. There is a completely buried cube in two halves, which we use as number 0 in our numbering system. It's abstractly galaxy shape, are they sure the universe is doughnut shape, could it rather be a 10 squared shape?

Our alphabet and numbering system is applied superstring theory. I do believe there is another space, within a 3x3x3 cube, a total of 28 cubes a perfect number.

The numbering system produces a different times table:

3x3=10
4x4=20
5x5=35
6x6=56

A variation of the gravity wheel I am building is the first apllication of the 3x3=10.

Ant

bolbuyk · 2004-08-10 09:04:21

Our alphabet and numbering system is applied superstring theory. I do believe there is another space, within a 3x3x3 cube, a total of 28 cubes a perfect number.

Two questions:

1. What about the 2x2 cubes which are inside the 3x3? You state there is a total of 28 cubes, a perfect number. But 1 + 8 + 27 makes 36, a perfect number. What about that? Or is that mathematic relativity the real bottom of special and general relativity?

2. Our alphabeth counts 26 characters, but Greec counts 24, Russian 33 (or so), Swedish 28, Chines, Japanese I do not know but much more. What about that?

About superstring: If i've right understood Hawking it's also possible that there are 10 string-dimensions. Hawking proposes extremely curved 6 dimensions that shut themselves to a futile space-time-like somewhat. The remaining 4 dimensions form our spacetime. What about that??

Morris · 2004-08-11 02:22:41

You would think so, but most physicists say that it can’t be used for FTL communication. I think that the problem is that you cant know when it is time to look at it or whether it has been acted upon until you get a light speed transmission from the person with the other entangled particle. The inability of this to be used for FTL communications is actually a good thing, because FTL communication would lead to causality violations...

Ok, showing my ignorance again, why don't you have the appropriate electronics interacting with your local set of entangled particles which beeps or turns on a light or whatever when the particles have changed? As long as the change was instantaneous nothing went backwards in time, so why would there be a causality violation?

Euler · 2004-08-11 03:37:03

Ok, showing my ignorance again, why don't you have the appropriate electronics interacting with your local set of entangled particles which beeps or turns on a light or whatever when the particles have changed?

One of the basic ideas of quantum mechanics is that in order to learn information about a particle, you have to measure it by making it interact with other particles. However, this process of measurement cannot be done without having some effect on the properties of the particle that is being measured. This means that you can't observe the particles to see if they have changed without changing them some yourself.

As long as the change was instantaneous nothing went backwards in time, so why would there be a causality violation?

In relativity, observers in different reference frames have different ideas about what "instantaneous" means. An observer in one reference frame might think that two events are simultaneous, while someone in a different reference frame would believe that one event happened before the other, and a third observer could think that the second event occurred before the first. As long as each event happens before any information about the other event can arrive, all three ideas about the simultaneity of the events are equally correct.

What this means is that if the communication appears instantaneous in one reference frame, it will appear to send information back in time for someone in another reference frame.

Algol · 2004-08-11 04:57:37

What this means is that if the communication appears instantaneous in one reference frame, it will appear to send information back in time for someone in another reference frame.

Yes, but that isnt a violation of causality. It is a simple reflection of the speed of observation.

Take for instance, a situation where you see a man shoot another man at a great distance. You will see the gun fire and the man fall dead before either the sound of the gunshot or the sound of the body thumping to the floor have reached you, this doesnt mean that the man died before the gunshot happened.

The light in this example is to sound, as quantum entanglement is to light. The fact that QT is 'instantaneous' and we normally consider light to be instantaneous leads to confusion in our minds but does not and cannot violate causality.

ant of stargrail · 2004-08-11 05:35:08

Two questions:
1. What about the 2x2 cubes which are inside the 3x3? You state there is a total of 28 cubes, a perfect number. But 1 + 8 + 27 makes 36, a perfect number. What about that? Or is that mathematic relativity the real bottom of special and general relativity?

A http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his … bers.html] perfect number in the classical sense of the word. The picture below of a view of the Quantum Cube, 1x1, 2x2 and 3x3. It makes a 'eight' cube structure. 2x2 has 1x1 in it. 3x3 has 1x1 and 2x2 in it.

The cube of 8 is the basis of Imperial measure, 8 divisions to an inch.

2. Our alphabeth counts 26 characters, but Greec counts 24, Russian 33 (or so), Swedish 28, Chines, Japanese I do not know but much more. What about that?

Thanks for the info.

About superstring: If i've right understood Hawking it's also possible that there are 10 string-dimensions. Hawking proposes extremely curved 6 dimensions that shut themselves to a futile space-time-like somewhat. The remaining 4 dimensions form our spacetime. What about that??

In the study of Magic Squares a table can be made of the line value of magic square. For example a 6 magic square with a start value of 1 shares the same constant 111 (sum of the diagonal) as the line value of a 3 magic square with a start value of 33.

1 2 3 4 5 6
8 11 12
15 16 18
21 22 24
26 29 30
31 36

33 34 35
37 38
39 41

The concept goes to infinity with strict rules of sharing. One of these sharing rules is that the 6 magic square does not 'tango' (or is it entangle.) with a 4 Magic Square.

The 4th Quantum Cube is an expanded 3 shape, with a cube frame in the middle. I see as a hollographic cube, with which an individuals reality is made.

Ant

SBird · 2004-08-11 11:47:56

I've thought a bit about the quantum entanglement drive and I'm now completely convinced the guy who wrote the article simply has a very poor grasp of the subject.

The best way to think of quantum entanglement is as follows:

If you have a reaction that produces two particles with matched spins (eg: one spin up, the other spin down) you can ascertain the spin of both particles by looking at only one of them. Classical physics says that both particles have a spin upon formation and that looking at one particles imply lets you know the spin of the other. Quantum physics (the Copenhagen interpretation, at least) states that neither particles has a spin. Rather, both have a mix of up and down spin until you look at one and then it suddenly gains a spin. The other particle then instantaneously 'gains' the opposite spin regardless of distance. Note that the Everett multi-world hypothesis nicely avoids this whole problem - the EPR effect is a direct result of the Copenhagen interpretation. Personally, I favor the Everett interpretation for this and other reasons.

No information is transferred between the particles. You can tell that entanglement occurs because of something called the BEll inequality. Basically, by carefully designing the experiment and looking at the proportions of the spins you see, you can prove that the particles don't have spins until you look at them.

It is impossible to use this to transmit information. Lots of people have looked at the EPR effect for FTL communication and the conclusion is that is is not possible. Since you can't transfer quantum states, the entanglement drive in the articles doesn't work.

If you need further proof, the entanglement drive violates the conservation of energy. If you apply energy to an entangled particles and the partner goes to the same energy state you have effectively doubled the amount of energy in the system, creating energy from nowhere.

John Creighton · 2004-08-11 12:06:34

To me this sounds very speculative and some of it sounds like majic. Moreover lasers today are not close to the power of the lasers the author describes.

While quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation experiments have to date been confined to entangled specimens of materials within the same laboratory, there is no theoretical limitation on how great a distance quantum entanglement can operate across. In other words, once two groups of atoms have been entangled, that entanglement would still be in effect were one of the entangled specimens moved to the other side of the earth.or the solar system.
Therefore, were two specimens of cesium (to take one example; other materials would also work) to be entangled on earth, then one of the specimens lofted into space, exciting the earthbound cesium sample to produce ions would result in the space-traveling cesium sample becoming energetically excited and producing ions like its earthbound counterpart. A resulting ion stream, produced without the benefit (or hindrance, for that matter) of any form of internal engine system onboard the spacecraft, could propel the craft through space. It would be a kind of engineless drive system, which I am calling the teleportation drive. The actual engine and, even more importantly, its power source-a nuclear reactor, a solar array, or other form of power generation-would remain on earth along with the earthbound, entangled fuel sample.

Powered by multiple power plants. What are the economomics of this.

While even a dedicated nuclear power plant may not generate sufficient power to create a laser powerful enough to realistically provide propulsion for a spacecraft, there is no reason why a single spacecraft would need to be powered by a single entangled laser beam; multiple power plants, perhaps widely spread geographically over the earth's surface, could generate multiple laser beams which would then be teleported to adjacent "cells" to the rear of the spacecraft, producing an array of high-power laser beams that would collectively propel the craft..potentially to near the speed of light. Incidentally, since entanglement information is itself conveyed (either by laser or radio waves) at the speed of light, and since even a telephotonic drive could never, according to relativity theory, propel a craft up to the speed of light, a spacecraft propelled by a telephotonic drive could never "outrun" its lasers' required entanglement information.

Morris · 2004-08-12 21:51:09

Thanks for taking the time to explain these things.

This means that you can't observe the particles to see if they have changed without changing them some yourself.

So I guess the question is, are the changes that are the result of observation the same as the changes due to intentional manipulation of the entangled particle? If not, then there is no conceptual problem with something polling the entangled particles periodically to see if they have changed. If they are the same, then it would seem that extracting the information might be complex.

Another question. If an entangled particle is manipulated, does it then "disentangle" from its partner or is the entanglement maintained? If the latter, and if the operations needed to "read" the information cause spin changes in the entangled particles, then the sender could know immediately if her message had been read.

One of the basic ideas of quantum mechanics is that in order to learn information about a particle, you have to measure it by making it interact with other particles. However, this process of measurement cannot be done without having some effect on the properties of the particle that is being measured.

This is one of the hardest parts for me. Whenever I read about quantum mechanics, the experimenter is always actively looking for something and doing something to the particles. Does this imply that in the quantum world, you can't simply be sitting there looking at your instruments and something happens serendipitously? For example, when a particle's spin is changed from "up" to "down" is that all that happens? Is energy absorbed or released? And if energy, is, for example, released, can't it be picked up by passive detectors that are not "looking for" it but simply put in a likely place to be irradiated by it.

What this means is that if the communication appears instantaneous in one reference frame, it will appear to send information back in time for someone in another reference frame.

Is this true for ALL events which appear to be simultaneous in our own reference frame? Or is the "universe" composed only of that subset of events which never appear to be going backwards in time regardless of the reference frame?

Again, thank you for your time.

Morris · 2004-08-12 23:15:58

Note that the Everett multi-world hypothesis nicely avoids this whole problem - the EPR effect is a direct result of the Copenhagen interpretation. Personally, I favor the Everett interpretation for this and other reasons.

Thanks for making us aware of the Everett interpretation. How would this interpretation explain the results of those experiments in "quantum teleportation" which have already been done and have been determined to be valid by replication?

No information is transferred between the particles. You can tell that entanglement occurs because of something called the BEll inequality. Basically, by carefully designing the experiment and looking at the proportions of the spins you see, you can prove that the particles don't have spins until you look at them.

But by looking at them you can predict with complete accuracy what the spin of the entangled "partner" particle must be? And, if you change the spin of a particle, and actually observe it's new spin, then you can also predict with perfect accuracy what the spin state of it's entangled partner must be?

If the above statements are both true, then we must be dealing with semantics about the meaning of "transferred". Since, if one particle's spin is determined to be "up", it's partner's is always "down" it looks like a NOT gate to me.

I don't know about "transfer" between particles, but somehow in the experiment as a whole there is a relation, and therefore a transfer of information, between the states of entangled particles and the rest of the experimental situation or else the previous experiments could not have been successfully performed and it would be absurd to talk about "quantum computing". Yet granting agencies seem to be taking this seriously.

If you need further proof, the entanglement drive violates the conservation of energy. If you apply energy to an entangled particles and the partner goes to the same energy state you have effectively doubled the amount of energy in the system, creating energy from nowhere.

Whew, now I'm really going round and round. I thought that the basis of entangled relations between particles was spin states. Are different spin states at different energy levels? Or are spin states just examples of the properties which can be involved in entanglement?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-07 16:54:30

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#2 2004-08-07 18:04:12

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#3 2004-08-08 13:09:45

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#4 2004-08-08 14:20:10

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#5 2004-08-08 15:46:43

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#6 2004-08-08 17:54:43

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#7 2004-08-08 18:07:49

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#8 2004-08-09 01:12:49

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#9 2004-08-09 10:49:52

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#10 2004-08-09 11:31:00

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#11 2004-08-09 12:53:33

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#12 2004-08-09 13:05:33

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#13 2004-08-09 13:16:04

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#14 2004-08-09 13:59:07

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#15 2004-08-09 14:45:29

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#16 2004-08-09 15:18:51

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#17 2004-08-10 09:04:21

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#18 2004-08-11 02:22:41

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#19 2004-08-11 03:37:03

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#20 2004-08-11 04:57:37

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#21 2004-08-11 05:35:08

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#22 2004-08-11 11:47:56

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#23 2004-08-11 12:06:34

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#24 2004-08-12 21:51:09

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

#25 2004-08-12 23:15:58

Re: Quantum entaglement as propulsion - Interstellar spaceflight possible?

Board footer