0
$\begingroup$

Everyone knows that news is important and communication,l too. Let's say, we, the Milky way, and we, the Andromeda are to communicate ~real-time and be informed (news), what's the most efficient way to establish this network?

I can't see anything better than milliards of nodes or a gigantic information lane between the two galaxies, but it's too unrealistic.

How could a person from the Andromeda call his friend in the Milky way and speek to him like we do it on the telephone or skype?

It's vital to add that it's necessary that nothing influences this network and nothing breaks it easily.

Edit: The galaxy hasn't magic or alien technology. It's our world a few thousand years later. Hyperspace and powerful engines exist, speed of light is reachable.

I was also thinking about sending data some time back in time for enough time to reach the other galaxy. Like if it takes 500-600 years for information to reach Andromeda from the Milky Way, we send it 500-600 years back for it to reach Andromeda exactly 500-600 years later in the present, just at the same time it was sent from the Milky Way.

|improve this question
$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by Aify, Secespitus, StephenG, sphennings, AndreiROM Oct 15 '17 at 4:56

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of Information Exchange In Space $\endgroup$ – Aify Oct 14 '17 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Aify I don't think that this is quite a duplicate. This question presumes essentially real-time communication over intergalactic distances. That other one deals with ships ferrying messages to and fro. $\endgroup$ – HAEM Oct 14 '17 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ Speaking of assuming real-time intergalactic communication, what is it that makes having milliards of nodes (one every few dozen solar systems) "too unrealistic"? $\endgroup$ – HAEM Oct 14 '17 at 19:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @HeikkiMäenpää I don't think it's possible and I don't find it workable. $\endgroup$ – SovereignSun Oct 14 '17 at 20:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm guessing you aren't looking for hard science, but a little more about your world and its tech type/level would be helpful. Like would psionics be on the table? Wormholes? Magic? Akasha? News aside, is intergalactic travel frequent and fast or rare and slow? $\endgroup$ – Xavon_Wrentaile Oct 14 '17 at 21:07
3
$\begingroup$

Any device that can communicate faster than light will rely on non-local physics anyway, removing the need for relays since relays are a locality-based concept.

Current physics indicates that the only cases in which information correlates between non-local events is with entangled particles, and as far as I know we don't have any way to produce large numbers of mutually entangled particles, or any way to transfer information between entangled particles, so even using that as a basis you'll have to make up new ideas to make it work for an intergalactic network. We just don't have a realistic expectation of instantaneous communication at all being possible.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Get with the program. Google is investing millions in this. It is not just realistic, it is probable, and within a few decades. $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 15 '17 at 0:27
  • $\begingroup$ @JustinThyme citation needed. Show me some actual science on this and your comment might carry some weight. $\endgroup$ – Asher Oct 15 '17 at 0:43
  • $\begingroup$ see my answer - I have several references and quotes in there. $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 15 '17 at 0:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @theindigamer even with a wormhole, information would travel through the wormhole at the speed of light. Wormholes only change what the locality is, not how the physics work... besides that, we haven't even theoretically worked out wormhole generation, so all my original statements stand: the author must invent new or fictional physics because current real physics cannot generate instantaneous communication. $\endgroup$ – Asher Oct 15 '17 at 1:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay, got it. While it isn't superluminal in the physics sense (because distance is defined across the wormhole), it is superluminal in the traditional sense of talking across the galaxy instantaneously. I originally thought you meant the latter instead of the former. That had me confused. $\endgroup$ – theindigamer Oct 15 '17 at 1:38
1
$\begingroup$

You could use a variation of your node idea, using Superluminal communication. The idea is that you send data through space "faster than light" using tiny wormholes to instantly send information to any destination. At each destination could be a node that opens a wormhole for data to pass through.

Wikipedia Article on Superluminal communication

Wikipedia Article on Wormholes

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Incidentally, that Wikipedia article on superluminal communication is very biased and way out of date. $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 15 '17 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I was unaware of that, in what ways is it inaccurate? @JustinThyme $\endgroup$ – Ant Oct 16 '17 at 1:24
  • $\begingroup$ The statements 'The current scientific consensus is that faster-than-light communication is not possible, and to date it has not been achieved in any experiment. Superluminal communication is believed to be impossible because, in a Lorentz-invariant theory, it could be used to transmit information into the past. This contradicts causality and leads to logical paradoxes.' Especially the part about transmitting information into the past. Quantum computers now exist, using entanglement and qbits, and more are being designed as we converse. $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 16 '17 at 17:45
0
$\begingroup$

Transmit data via another dimension.

We are all familiar with the 3 dimensional space (lets leave time out of it for the moment) we inhabit. Length, width, height. X, Y, Z. Some theories of physics say there are more than the three we can sense. It's possible they could be "bigger" or "higher" dimensions.

Using an old thought experiment, Flatland, we can explore the idea a little easier. To the 2d occupants of Flatland, they can only see a limited area, however, you or I (living in 3d space) could see much more of Flatland be cause we can rise above it in a "higher" dimension. Such a thing could exist for us as well, something that a 4d creature would find elementary but we can't see.

Back to Flatland, distance is fixed for them by the X and Y cords of the start and end point. Picture Flatland as a sheet of paper. To a Flatlander, it would not matter if that paper was flat or folder or a crumpled up ball. They would see it the same way. Their X and Y cords would not change at all. If they wanted to travel or transmit a message from XY1 to XY2 the distance is always the same using 2d methods. If they somehow managed to access the third dimension, they could see that what they perceive as a flat plane is in truth a waded up ball then by adding a Z to the existing X and Y cords the distance changes. Now if they somehow manage to manipulate their world in the third dimension they could draw any two X Y cords closer together on the Z-axis and transmit data as they please then that would allow them to effectively transmit data faster than the speed of light without breaking the light barrier.

The same thing could happen in our 3d world. Breaking into a higher dimension and manipulating our X Y Z cords on this higher axis to pull the points closer together and transmit data effectively faster than the speed of light without breaking the light barrier.

So your network nodes would fold space making a network of tunnels to transmit data with little delay. Around a planet or to another galaxy, it would make little difference.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Good point. Most of Einstein's so-called 'spacetime' is actually flat, two dimensional slices. Translating it into 3D causes a lot of contradictions. How do you 'fold' a 3D spacetime? He saw distance as a linearity, as a line. From point A to point B. A line has no thickness. What happens in a gravitational well if you just cut across it instead of following the curves? Einstein only dealt with the lines that were on the graph, not the ones that were not. You don't need the fourth dimension, just the 3rd dimension. $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 15 '17 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Justin It would seem to me that, even if spacetime is curved (warped) by a gravity well, we could not exploit the fact without a higher dimension. Going back to Flatland, they have no idea of the "shape" of their space. It could be a flat plane like a sheet of paper or it could be a crumpled mess, like a balled up sheet of paper. To them there is no difference because they are locked in and can only move on the x and/or y axis. So, being locked in as they are, to them it's always a "flat" plane. (too long so cont in next) $\endgroup$ – Leezard Oct 15 '17 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ (continued from above) Back to our 3d space, if it's warped by a powerful gravity well that only matters from a 4th dimensional point of view. To us, being locked in 3 dimensions, we have to access it within that limit. It seems we would need a 4th for a "shortcut". $\endgroup$ – Leezard Oct 15 '17 at 17:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What I mean is that the 'lines' in the traditional depiction of spacetime warping due to gravity have no thickness. If you stack several of these planes on top of each other, you will notice that the lines that dip around the apex of the graph would all be compressed by the next plane, relative to the lines further away from the object. It is not a 3D representation. It is a plane. A plane has no thickness. But you are, in a way, perfectly correct. If you cut across the well, instead of following the lines around it, you need another dimension. $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 15 '17 at 23:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ctd The gravity well would be your crumpled paper in 2D filling a 3D space, But it is supposed to be a 3D representation filling a 4D space. When you warp a 2D plane into 3D space, like you did by crumpling the parer, things really get complicated. When you crumple a 3D space into 4D, it gets really tricky. Our terminology and our ability to model it fails us. But yes, to warp a 3D space as gravity wells are supposed to do, you need a 4D space to warp it into. And cee is only the speed limit in 3D linear space mapped as 2D (a line). $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 15 '17 at 23:55
-1
$\begingroup$

The current research today, and there are millions of dollars behind it (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google) is the use of entanglement for quantum computers. It is not unreasonable, based on current ideas, to have a global, if not galactic and inter-galactic connected quantum computer based on entanglement. The University of Waterloo is on the vanguard of such research.

The myths about entanglement (it does not transmit information, in order to read it you have to destroy it, you can not maintain entanglement, you can not entangle enough particles to be useful, you can not manipulate the entanglement repeatedly without collapsing it) have all fallen in the last two years or so.

This research is no longer theoretical, nor pure quantum physics research. The goal is a pay-off of billions of dollars in the next decade or so in super-advanced quantum computers based on entanglement. The University of Waterloo is only one of many universities that have created entire departments to study it.

So, given such attention today by 'big money', I don't think it is unreasonable to propose it has been developed for what you want in your story. It is being taken very seriously by some very accomplished physicists.

from the University of Waterloo article

Entanglement is an extremely strong correlation that exists between quantum particles — so strong, in fact, that two or more quantum particles can be inextricably linked in perfect unison, even if separated by great distances. The particles remain perfectly correlated even if separated by great distances. The particles are so intrinsically connected, they can be said to “dance” in instantaneous, perfect unison, even when placed at opposite ends of the universe. This seemingly impossible connection inspired Einstein to describe entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.”

Einstein's "spooky action at a distance' is now reality.

Further research from China First Object Teleported from Earth to Orbit

Teleportation has become a standard operation in quantum optics labs around the world. The technique relies on the strange phenomenon of entanglement. This occurs when two quantum objects, such as photons, form at the same instant and point in space and so share the same existence. In technical terms, they are described by the same wave function.

Another reference from Physicists Discover the Secret of Quantum Remote Control

In recent years, however, physicists have discovered how to manipulate quantum objects without destroying their quantum nature. The trick is to nudge them very gently. Doing this continuously eventually produces a significant change while preserving the quantum characteristics of the system.

The breakthrough that Muschik and co have made is to work out how to perform the same kind of gentle nudges on an entangled system, something that immediately leads to quantum remote control.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This answer is misleading: quantum teleportation requires classical communication, so it can't exceed the speed of light. $\endgroup$ – theindigamer Oct 15 '17 at 1:16
  • $\begingroup$ Quantum computing does not rely on instantaneous communication, nor does it use or attain instantaneous communication. The University of Waterloo article has no information whatsoever on communication. The article about the Chinese experiment not only points out that the entangled photons must be transmitted normally (i.e. not instantaneously) but also that even just going 500km they sent "millions" of photons and only had less than a thousand positive results. 99.9% losses just getting to orbit does not bode well for even interplanetary communication, let alone interstellar or intergalactic. $\endgroup$ – Asher Oct 15 '17 at 1:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Asher Instantaneous communication is a BYPRODUCT of quantum computing. I can assure you this is real. Fortunately, quantum physicists have little use for Einstein. They generally disregard his pontificates when billions of dollars are at stake. Quantum mechanics and relativity are generally incompatible. 'Spooky actions' indeed. Einstein's concept of information is flawed. Information does not travel, it just IS. Everywhere. At the same time. Like a quantum field. Everywhere, universally and equally. I am here now. Even to a person at the other end of the galaxy, I am here now. $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 15 '17 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ They used the beam to GET the photons there. Once they were there, they were entangled. Once entangled, they were in instantaneous communication. But they had to GET them there first. THAT was classic physics. You can't just entangle things millions of kilometers apart. You have to entangle them, THEN move them apart. Such effort just to maintain Einstein's prophecies. He and Planck did have their inconsolable differences. Fortunately, there are those who believed in Planck. So choose - Einstein or Planck? I back the winner, not the looser. $\endgroup$ – Justin Thyme Oct 15 '17 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ @JustinThyme you cannot assure me that instantaneous communication is real because we have no working examples of it. The single"example" you've mentioned cannot transmit information instantly because the information is carried on particles that do not travel instantly. And trying to get around the problem by stating that "quantum mechanics and relativity are generally incompatible" displays an ignorance of how either theory works as well as how they are incompatible or why that would be relevant. $\endgroup$ – Asher Oct 15 '17 at 14:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.