A certain sandwich / sub shop is known for and advertises for their speed of service. A speed war is likely between them and other places of business.
By introducing quantum entanglement information transferrence (which is the same technology behind mother's intuition, twin sentence finishing, and the accelerator pedal of the Bugatti Veyron SS), they could have your order even a few billionths of a second faster.-- RayfordSteele, Jun 13 2011 top gear with the lovely James May - Captain Slow http://www.youtube....watch?v=jk1t6S737Cs [po, Jun 13 2011] Planck time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_timeEquivalent to 60 New Yourk Seconds (q.v.) [8th of 7, Jun 17 2011] New York Second http://www.urbandic...erm=new+york+secondVery fast. [8th of 7, Jun 17 2011] [+] One fast food bun for the title alone!-- xandram, Jun 13 2011 bad science or no invention? (-)-- Voice, Jun 13 2011 I understand. +-- DIYMatt, Jun 13 2011 [+]
Bonus baguette if the system is sophisticated enough to allow causality violations, such that the sandwich you want is freshly and rapidly prepared, with completion scheduled for the exact moment you make your mind up about the filling.-- 8th of 7, Jun 13 2011 //Bugatti Veyron// Sp.: Baguettey Veyron.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 13 2011 I dunno. Until you can get up to at least the millisecond level it hardly seems worth the hassle.-- ytk, Jun 13 2011 [-] Bad science. Quantum entanglement does not speed up information transfer. It only allows one to "teleport" the state of one object onto another object made of the same elements. But this operation still requires transference of the classical message bits, and these can't go faster than light. (Not that you claimed it could). So, you could prepare your perfect sandwich in your office and teleport that sandwich state to a pile of bread and bologna in the sandwich shop. But why not just eat the one in your office and save a trip?
An old American expression is: "Where's the beef?"-- sqeaketh the wheel, Jun 13 2011 I just have the phone psychics do the ordering, then I hide from the food to prove theres something other than predestination.-- beanangel, Jun 13 2011 I'm aware of the sketchy science bit. But how do twins know exactly what each is thinking?-- RayfordSteele, Jun 14 2011 //then I hide from the food//
That would make you an ambush predator, like a Komodo dragon or a spider, except that they're not phone-psychic symbionts.-- pertinax, Jun 16 2011 Could this technology be extended to cover the ordering of pre-boxed cats ?-- 8th of 7, Jun 16 2011 Yes, but we're having problems with quality of delivery. Half of the time the boxes show up with dead felines. We're questioning our shipping operators to find what's exactly going on...-- RayfordSteele, Jun 16 2011 Easy way to implement:
You can only order A or B. A decaying atom in the box with A & B will determine which one pops out of the box.
Upon placing the order & observing your selection, the state collapses & you discover, it's exactly the choice you wanted! Choice A!
Of course, to make this really work, you'd make sure B was something nobody EVER ordered (like PB & Vagina Jam on Loofa) and just pre-stock boxes with just A in them.-- sophocles, Jun 16 2011 or on knowing youre coming it could preload the ingredients you always have on every sandwich eg cheese, lettuce, tomatoes.-- bob, Jun 17 2011 //Upon placing the order & observing your selection, the state collapses// And the price of your lunch immediately hyperinflates to £50,000.-- pocmloc, Jun 17 2011 Could be useful for a standing "I'll have what she's having" order-- theircompetitor, Jun 17 2011 I agree with the causality objection. But if you were to "borrow" a sandwich from the vacuum and eat it in a sufficiently short period, then you could do away the ordering altogether, and you wouldn't have to pay for it.-- ldischler, Jun 17 2011 // in a sufficient short period //
Less than the Planck time ? That's how quick you would have to be to stop your Universe noticing, and calling security.
<link>
Better to take the sandwich and hide behind an Event Horizon, where you can eat it at your leisure.-- 8th of 7, Jun 17 2011 //Less than the Planck time ?//
Yes, you do have to eat the sandwich fast, but once the universe took it back, the calories would be gone and you'd be left with nothing but the memory. If it was a really great sandwich, that might be enough.-- ldischler, Jun 17 2011 Ah, your species is starting to grasp the Time ≡ Energy ≡ Mass ≡ Information tradeoff, as postulated in "The Morphology of the Kirkham Wreck".
Memory is Information extrapolated into the Time domain.
We could explain furrther, but then we'd have to kill you.
Actually, we wouldn't actually be obliged to kill you, but we would do it anyway, as it's as good an excuse as any, and we quite like killing things.
Particulalrly cats.-- 8th of 7, Jun 17 2011 And your spelling teachers.-- daseva, Jun 17 2011 // furrther //
Could be deliberate irony, could be a Freudian Slip ... who knows ?
And it's Geography teachers, actually.-- 8th of 7, Jun 17 2011 //hide behind an Event Horizon, where you can eat it at your leisure//
In a sufficiently intense gravitational field, time would slow enough so that you could enjoy the sandwich you borrowed from the vacuum...except your mouth would slow the same amount so you couldn't. The only person who could appreciate the sandwich--or even see it--would be someone outside the gravitational field, but they couldn't see it because of this "event horizon." Damn universe.-- ldischler, Jun 18 2011 //someone outside the gravitational field// If only we had some sort of spooky sandwich-eating at a distance.-- mouseposture, Jun 18 2011 //spooky sandwich-eating at a distance//
So if one of a pair of entangled sandwiches fell through the event horizon (and into slower time), could a sandwich eaten in the future prevent the eating of its twin in the past?-- ldischler, Jun 18 2011 Yes, but as [sophocles] pointed out, the twin is PB & Vagina Jam on Loofa, so preventing it from getting eaten isn't really much of an achievement.
In Shannon terms, the information communicated from future to past is much less than one bit.-- mouseposture, Jun 18 2011 random, halfbakery