Hacker News Reader

It is not possible to use quantum phenomena for faster-than-light communication. It's fine to speculate about completely new physics allowing for such communication, but it really doesn't have to do much with what we call quantum physics.

It doesn't need to take into account "quantum phenomenon" because the phenomenon you are citing is fictitious.

There are no quantum effects that allow superluminal communication of information.

Sure there is. You've just not seen it on HN yet.

I've thought about this a bunch also. Once you start to think about say, the outside of the outside of a pilot wave...or the determination of the resonance of a string... I don't think it's fair to say the article is invalid, but it doesn't account for a lot of the more fringe areas of quantum mechanics for sure. I'm surprised you're getting downvoted.

All communication relies on quantum phenomenon. The universe is a big mess of quantum phenomenon. It's not magic that lets you violate the laws of physics, it is the laws of physics.

It's funny with all the downvotes, first I never said that anything violated the laws of physics, I said that they don't follow the physics as life on earth. Second, there are many downvotes, but no actual evidence of what I said being wrong. I feel as if I am arguing with self-reassured people.

You're arguing with a physicist.

There's no such thing as "quantum phenomenon" that is distinct from any other phenomena. All phenomena are quantum. You're using that word the same way any other woo-peddler uses it: to worship ignorance and preserve the 'majesty' of the unknown.

> All phenomena are quantum.

This sounds rather reductionist. (I am not sure if all "physicists" are prone to making this mistake.) Surely, the French Revolution was not a quantum phenomenon.

Non-locality doesn't allow FTL communication. Our universe seems to obey the same laws of physics everywhere. We can speculate all day about other universes, but there's no evidence we'd ever reach them even if they do exist. If you want to figure out what things are likely you have to start with what's possible.

The physics degree can certainly reassure a person when talking about what is pretty fundamental physics. I'm surprised the irony about accusing others of being self-reassured isn't lost on you. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

The burden of proof lies on you, not 'them'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

The same analogy can be applied in reverse.

The article here is the one that is making an unfalsifiable claim that "a living creature cannot be as big as a galaxy", but offers no definitive proof of nonexistence of such creative.

No, that analogy can't be applied in reverse. You're right that placing the burden of proof on the positive assertion is a dialectic oversimplification. But the specific claim, "A living creature cannot be as big as a galaxy" does not suffer from the problem of induction - we can use deductive reasoning to falsify it given relevant, empirical observations.

The classic example of white swans and black swans adheres to the problem of making universal generalizations because we simply have not yet observed a black swan, and we cannot use the continued observation of white swans as empirical evidence. However, we are not attempting to make a universal generalization based on inductive reasoning.

We have, available to us, a schema for enforcing the testability of this claim, which the article and its references explore in detail. The square-cube law and our current model of physics both make it impossible for a "living creature" to be as large as a galaxy, for any definition of "living" and "creature" that is reasonably agreeable.

The normal processes of life; including temperature regulation, metabolism, energy expenditure and movement would all be severely impeded in a single discrete organism of that size. Moreover, it would have severely limited cognition even if signals traveled at the speed of light, which handicaps both its own sophistication and potential evolution.

It doesn't seem appropriate to characterize something that cannot have these functioning traits as "living"; the only way forward seems to be to broaden our definition of "living" or "creature" to some sort of aggregated, abstract consciousness that makes organisms like ourselves analogous to bacteria. But that can hardly be called a discrete organism in the same way that our brains are cognitively independent of the life around them.