[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Well at out current technology level we can't see a practical use for time traveling forward in time, especially since there's no need.

I can think of one right now: a terminally diseased patient might survive long enough for a cure to be found.

But in the future with interstellar travel, going high at a high speed will mean you age less. When considering intergalactic distances, time is no different from distance, you'd want to cover more distance and time in lesser time.

Not something that has to concern us... soon.

In physics, information is not 'knowledge' or 'instruction', it is the information of the state of matter, such as the spin of particles, the particle wavelength etc.

And in practical terms, all of that is just a means of encoding bits.

Right now scientists are able to teleport a particle by synchronising the information of two particles using quantum entanglement,

Misleading. They're teleporting a physical state, not a particle itself.

effectively making the target particle the exact same particle as the template.

Except they were pretty close to start with.

If scientists are able to achieve this at a molecular scale, they can create a duplicate mass, effectively 'teleporting' mass, matter over a distance. This technology is killing two birds with one stone actually, teleportation and duplication. Lets say you have a storage of atoms, you can entangle those atoms to become what you want to duplicate.

Uh... No. You don't create mass. What happens is that you have start with two atoms (or protons or bucky balls or whatever), and you end with two atoms. All you've gained by entangling them is that you can take one and tell what state the other's in... once.

So, yeah. No lag, but I don't know what the bandwidth's like. And, like ambassadors carrying codes in their baggage, you have to carry stuff from one point to another before you can transmit a given volume of data.

Abstract art is quite a nuisance in art actually, but the general audience and the artist may see different things as abstract. Sometimes there are some artists who are too indulgent, they make things that nobody can understand but themselves, especially if expressed poorly. And then there are those that are just there to make something that looks interesting but really doesn't carry any content. Fine art, modern art, abstract art, they all have mean differently. But still abstract art is not a bad thing, there are really awe inspiring pieces of abstract art.

Art does affect science as well, like Daniel Shechtman, the 2011 Chemistry Nobel Prize winner. His discovery of quasicrystals was because he got the idea from the patterns of elaborate embroidered tapestry. He was ridiculed for thinking that crystals could have multifold symmetry above 4, when he claimed to see a 10 fold symmetry in a crystal which he figured out from the tapestry patterns.

As Aristotle said, art is the mimesis of nature, to put it very crudely, art is copying nature. Da Vinci studied nature for his art, his creations were artistic, but the observations and content were scientific. Even a film telling a story of a person, it is a mimesis of a human life, a part of nature. Aristotle Also means that nothing is original, because everything was originally inspired by nature, the first cave drawing was about the food cavemen hunted.

And I bet his beef is that Jackson Pollock wasn't painting anything you'd see in nature, unless, haha, you had some serious psychiatric problems.