The future is bleak, give up.

[OlekKing]

Quantum Networks aren't that far off...this will mean 100% secure communication as well as 0 lag.

 

http://www.tudelft.nl/en/current/latest-news/article/detail/tu-delft-legt-fundament-voor-quantum-internet/

 

"Researchers at TU Delft have managed to bring two electrons, three meters from each other, into a quantum- entangled state. This result marks a major step towards realizing a quantum network that can be used to connect future quantum computers and to send information in a completely secure way."

 

Here is some work done on a rudimentary photon quantum router:

 

http://www.wired.com/2012/08/quantum-router/

 

A lot of people are looking into this.

[1_thing]

Yea quantum entanglement!!! (But ATM it's only just over a 0.5 chance of a particle being entangled so only half your shots will be on target!!) However it would be 66.5 ms as you don't go 24, 000 miles around the earth to reach something 1 m the other way!!!

Thing

[Nineshadow]

That's why we have quantum physics!

 

It breaks everything.

[Syntaxvgm]

Erm math error. That is 133ms to make a full loop around the earth's circumference from point 'A' back to point 'A' in one hop. For the two furthest points on earth you would take that number and divide by 2 for half a circumference. 

 

So your maximum latency should be ~66.5ms in one hop. 

 

Not bad. Until we find a way to send data faster than light (string theory/quantum/modern physics).

No, it's right I think. I wanted the number for one loop. From point A to B, back to A. 

Ping measures round trip. 

[ionbasa]

But a ping has to go there and back so circumference of the earth devided by two times two. Thats how latency is measured. Your calculation would be valid for data transmission or something, but that would have other bottlenecks.

That depends on how the data transmission/reception is implemented. If we consider and ICMP Echo request, then yes, your statement and the OP's would be correct.

 

But in real-life, there is no such thing as perfect duplex data transmission. If there were, we could send data back and forth between the two hosts the instant a packet has been received by either host, something which is not feasible, as it is technically impossible. Now say computer 'A' sends a packet 'P1' to computer 'B'. The packet would take 66.5ms to transit that distance in one direction and then whatever time it takes computer B to process that packet. B then processes P1 and creates a reply packet 'P2' to A, which again takes 66.5ms to transit that distance. 

 

Now here is kicker:

Depending on how you look at it:

• Relative to 'A' and 'B', the computers know that the time to transfer data from each other is 66.5ms
• But the time for duplex communications would be the sum of the time relative from each computer. In this case, 133ms.

Now the question becomes: How are we relatively looking at the time to transit?

If say: for a multiplayer game, it would be 133ms as there is a need for near instantaneous duplex transceiving. 

But for other types of data (one way) it would be 66.5

 

Now, if we add a server between the two computers and synchronize the time between the 2 computers and the host, we can get better artificial ping times. This is the solution used now in games, but it comes at a cost of lag, and region bound game servers.

 

Either way both 66.5ms and 133ms are 'correct', but its all relative to how we look at the problem.

[Syntaxvgm]

That depends on how the data transmission/reception is implemented. If we consider and ICMP Echo request, then yes, your statement and the OP's would be correct.

 

But in real-life, there is no such thing as perfect duplex data transmission. If there were, we could send data back and forth between the two hosts the instant a packet has been received by either host, something which is not feasible, as it is technically impossible. Now say computer 'A' sends a packet 'P1' to computer 'B'. The packet would take 66.5ms to transit that distance in one direction and then whatever time it takes computer B to process that packet. B then processes P1 and creates a reply packet 'P2' to A, which again takes 66.5ms to transit that distance. 

 

Now here is kicker:

Depending on how you look at it:

• Relative to 'A' and 'B', the computers know that the time to transfer data from each other is 66.5ms
• But the time for duplex communications would be the sum of the time relative from each computer. In this case, 133ms.

Now the question becomes: How are we relatively looking at the time to transit?

If say: for a multiplayer game, it would be 133ms as there is a need for near instantaneous duplex transceiving. 

But for other types of data (one way) it would be 66.5

 

Now, if we add a server between the two computers and synchronize the time between the 2 computers and the host, we can get better artificial ping times. This is the solution used now in games, but it comes at a cost of lag, and region bound game servers.

 

Either way both 66.5ms and 133ms are 'correct', but its all relative to how we look at the problem.

yeppers. I was looking at it from a game perspective, and a perfect peer to peer scenario, if there were no other bottlenecks in the transmission. So essentially one round, uninterrupted trip somehow.