Can information travel faster than the speed of light?

Keeping it simple, let's say that two particles are entangled, and that they must, by conservation laws, have equal and opposite spin. Before the particles are observed, each particle has a superposition of the probabilities of both spins. Once the particles are observed, the probability functions collapse with one particle taking on one spin, and the other taking on the opposite.Even if the particles are separated by millions on miles, when one particle is observed and takes on one spin, the other immediately takes on the opposite spin.The reason you cannot use this to communicate information is because you have no control over which spin a particle takes on when you observe it.Say you wanted to transmit the binary sequence 101, and you've got three pairs of entangled particles, call the pairs A, B and C. You have one particle of each pair, and your partner on the opposite side of the globe has the other. You've agreed that positive spin corresponds to 1, and negative spin corresponds to 0. At the agreed upon time (your observations have to be synchronized) you try to send the first bit of the 101 sequence by observing your particle A. But you have no control over which state it collapses to, and by sheer bad luck with 50% probability it collapses to a spin of 0. So much for sending information using quantum entanglement.But it has strong and very useful applications in coding and security. Some think faster computers will one day take advantage of quantum entanglement. While I agree this is possible, just like you'll never see nuclear reactors on your desktop, you'll never see quantum computers there either. Or, to put it more optimistically, there's a ways to go technologically before quantum computing finds its way into the home.--Percy

Regarding the size of objects, I learned about the relative sizes of atoms and their component particles as a kid, but at the opposite end of the size spectrum, I had a similar reaction as an adult when I figured out how vastly far apart stars are compared to galaxies.If our sun were the size of a basketball, then the next closest star, Alpha Centauri, would be more than 3000 miles away.But if our galaxy were roughly the same size, about a foot in diameter, then the next closest full-sized galaxy, Andromeda, would be only about 20 feet away.On a relative basis, the stars in our part of the galaxy are like lonely specs in a vast emptiness, while galaxies are within easy hailing distance of each other.--Percy