Jump to content

(SPLIT) Quantum Entanglement and communication


monotwix
 Share

Recommended Posts

MODERATOR NOTE:

This thread is a split from thread: Planet found orbiting Alpha Centauri B

In order to not have two perpendicular discussions ongoing in the same thread.

 

---

 

 

Think of non locality, the phenomenon that actually works, doesn’t mean it’s going to transport all the matter particles from A to B but it wouldn’t have to if you have control of it.

Philosophically, if you are a person on the moon and I’m the person on Mars and we have two enticed particles which are linked with non locality, whatever I do to my particle you will detect instant reaction in your particle.

What does that mean after all? Well out of 250000 years of human existence it only took 100 years to learn how to control the electrons.


Edited by EtherealN

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, quantum physics makes an entrance. :)

 

It's "entangled" particles, not "enticed", and no - you cannot transfer information with it as far as has been determined so far.

 

This is science, not philosophy. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- yes . But to transport information instantly via quantum entanglement you have to bring this "receiver" first to this place somehow. - and this can't be done via quantum entanglement.

So when you want to talk instantly with a dolphin near beteigeuze - you will have to travel there first on a conventional way.

(and this is the point where I start to chuckle again ^_^)


Edited by PeterP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you want to talk instantly with a dolphin near beteigeuze - you will have to travel there first on a conventional way.

(and this is the point where I start to chuckle again ^_^)

 

What if the dolphins have already solved the problem and are waiting at Betelgeuse for us too call?! :P

 

Sorry, I couldn't stop myself...


Edited by cichlidfan

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that’s the point, it took time and experiments to discover electrical current and then voltage to put it into energy and practical use.

 

But you cannot take that towards saying X will solve itself.

 

Put it like this: we know, in principle, how to make an interstellar starship that goes to AC within a lifetime. It is, as they say, an "engineering question".

 

Information transmission through entangled quanta is still basic physics stage, and it has not been proven that this is useable. What has been observed is exactly the entangled nature, but no-one has sent actual information (AFAIK) using this "medium" yet; there's not even a proof of concept!

 

Might as well say we can travel faster than light, it just takes time and experiments to discover how... :P

 

(And while time is spent figuring that out, we stand still. What if the Apollo program had been canceled because "well, we ain't got large enough computers right now".)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Information transmission through entangled quanta is still basic physics stage, and it has not been proven that this is useable. What has been observed is exactly the entangled nature, but no-one has sent actual information (AFAIK) using this "medium" yet; there's not even a proof of concept!

QUOTE]

 

Niles Bohr knew better back in early days, the modern day experiments confirmed the theory many times. The last one I know of was between 2 points of Europe and Asia about 3-5 years ego. Ask any physicist to disprove.

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to link me to the paper. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have. You obviously have some sources here, so I'd like to know which ones?

 

Author(s), publication and approximation of publishing date and title is enough.

 

You see, the thing I suspect you are mixing up is this:

1) Being able to detect the instantaneous interaction between entangled particles.

2) Being able to transmit information through this medium.

 

You see, in instance 1, you can cause a change, any change, to occur in particle A, and detect a corresponding change in particle B, and thus have proven the entangled status of the particles and that this occured superluminally.

 

In instance 2, you are required to be able to do this in a predictable manner - that is, you need to induce a very specific change in particle A, not any change, and you need to be able to do so reliably. (You're combating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle here.)

 

In instance 1, the physical concept of information is transmitted superluminally. However, this is not the concept of information we use when, for example, talking to each other via electrons over wires on the internet. This is the same type of information as when the explosive force of a bomb is transmitted through it's shockwave, or the information related to the gravity of an object being mediated by particles (gravitons in this case) causing the effect of gravity.

 

Instance 1 is proven. Instance 2 is, as far as I know, not. The difference between them is extremely important, and since you now have stated as a fact that instance 2 is proven I'm curious for any pointers you can give. Preferably the actual papers, since this is the kind of area where popular science mags and similar media cannot be trusted to give an accurate description of the results.


Edited by EtherealN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to explain it like this, assuming knowledge of the Uncertainty principle, collapsing wave functions and so on. (I'm not an expert there, far from it, but for the sake of argument.)

 

We want to transmit information from point A to point B, instantaneously. We do so by measuring the a state of the particle at A. This causes the particle at B to instantaneously assume the opposite state. This information, in the sense of physics, is transmitted instantaneously. So far so good.

 

Let's say we want to send binary information this way. The only way for the state of either particle to be known is that someone has to measure it. But how do I know when to measure it? In order to receive meaningful information (in the sense we humans understand the word), is for me to know when you were measuring the state of your particle. And how do I get to know this?

 

I can't. I have to wait for you to send me this information at, in maximum, the speed of light...

 

Now yes, the information was there, but I cannot get anything meaningful from it without waiting for the speed of light to tell me when you did your action.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 10 years ago I red a couple of books about the physics history and it got me thinking, after that it was about gathering information packets and

I’m not confusing A and B, the B experiment worked.

Perhaps the slowing down of speed of light to couple of metres per second would come as a surprise. I'm not changing the subject.

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the slowing down of speed of light to couple of metres per second would come as a surprise. I'm not changing the subject.

 

Slowing down light is nothing weird, just change the medium. Your eyes do that, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see. We are talking about the speed of light in a vacuum. The constant known as c in physics.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the point is: can you find the information on the net about experiment that can slow the speed of light through a medium to 3 metres per second and then restore it back to 300 000km/second?

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. And it has zero relevance to what we are talking about.

 

Like I said, we are talking about C, the speed of light in a vacuum. There is no such thing as an experiment that slows the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

If you can, for example, make a bose-einstein-condensate going from here to AC, then yes - I can send information faster to AC than the light that travels through the condensate. For example through sending a laser beam through the interstellar medium between the stars...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case I’m gonna stick to the propulsion, no locality is a solid stuff not a bla bla, (universe expanded faster than v-light and some define space as negative energy and matter as positive energy in physics, unrelated to comments)

I’ve also discovered somehow that the entanglement is an expensive process.

 

That's what I call 0 relavance.

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we're back at the previous mentioned concepts of interstellar travel being the most practical as far as we know, and quantum entanglement being irrelevant to the matter of interstellar travel?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 10 years ago I red a couple of books

 

I'll add this btw: the relevant experiments seeking communication through utilizing quantum entanglement were started 6 years ago. So whatever you read 10 years ago was not this.

 

As I said, I believe you are confusing the physics concept of information ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information ) with the colloquial concept of information ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information )

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add this btw: the relevant experiments seeking communication through utilizing quantum entanglement were started 6 years ago. So whatever you read 10 years ago was not this.

 

As I said, I believe you are confusing the physics concept of information ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information ) with the colloquial concept of information ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information )

 

Well it’s not about some books from 10 years or any subsequent pieces of information I obtained from media to be used as evidence for interstellar travel, in fact I can speak of nonsense but the idea is about the architecture of thought to perceive the reality by all available means.

For me it’s highly unlikely to see a government spend billions on the interstellar travel because it’s not practical to invest in at least 140 years ahead time for an uncertain outcome even if a spacecraft which can reach 0.10 speed of light, note at this time it hasn’t even surpassed its experimental stages. (not practical and unrealistic to go to the nearest stars if it takes 1000-100 000 years)

 

Remember when I mentioned about the discovery of coil and magnet, the ability to control electrons and consequences? I this case of given probabilities I would bet on the unknown rather than the known facts. That’s to say we still don’t know enough about nature and possibilities to make conclusions.

The reason behind the non-locality in this subject suggests that even if you reach a solar system in 70 years and be able to receive information instantaneously instead of 140 years, it would make it more feasible hence practical to launch a spacecraft.

 

Some sources produce different results about instantaneous communication but what is widely acceptable and widely debateable is still in its exploration stages and I’m not limiting my thoughts to underlined types of information and I‘m not confusing the two.

 

http://bpramana.tripod.com/uut03.htm

 

 

In the summer of 1982, Alain Aspect and his co-workers, successfully conducted an historical experiment at the University of Paris. The result of his experiment gives the verdict on a half century long debate between Einstein and Neils Bohr, known as the "EPR Paradox" 1) (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen), and at the same time also gave the experimental evidence for the 'non-locality' and 'counterfactuality' principle of Quantum Physics. In simple language, the Alain Aspect experiment has proved that two complementary particles that split and travelled at the speed of light in opposite directions, no matter how far they are apart, are always 'in communication' with each other. If we measure or change the direction of flight of one particle (say particle A), the other particle (say particle B) which might be light years away, will know it and will change its flight direction to complement its partner (particle A).

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monotwix, that's what I'm telling you - that experiment proved the superluminal transfer of physical information. You cannot use this as a communications device, because until and unless you have another source of information telling you what the other side was doing - information that travels at maximum in the speed of light - you cannot get anything meaningful from it.

 

Transmitting physical information (the state of the relevant entangled particles) is not the same as transmitting "information" in the sense of cell phones, radios etcetera. This is extremely important. The word "information" is in this case just a linguistic approximation and label for the physics as described by mathematics, similarly to how a particle's "spin" doesn't actually talk about a spinning top or ice scater.

 

It is possible that someone, sometime, will come up with a way to actually use this (or some other) phenomenon to transmit information faster - for example the opening of microscopic wormholes and shining a modulated laser through it. (Though that is technically not FTL, just like the Warp Drive isn't technically FTL, and to get at the wormhole we need to figure out some way to get matter with negative mass, which is so far only a mathematical construct.) But so far, the results indicate that no, you cannot use entangled particles for faster-than-light communication.

 

If anything, getting a functional Warp drive would be the most effective solution - basically an FTL courier.

 

Also, betting on the unknown is unfortunately quite silly. If you want to bet on the unknown, you have to bet on all the unknowns. You can't go from "everything we know so far says this is impossible, and for this reason it will work"...


Edited by EtherealN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you something.. Betting is not silly at all, if you already know the outcome it’s not a bet.

What you do is, you make assumptions and build a Hadron Collider, it’s not a bet but an investment in information.

I hope you do realise that our world is composed of invisible reality.

Furthermore can you actually comprehend the meaning of experiment by Alain Aspect that produced a physical proof to resolve the 50 years of EPR debate?


Edited by monotwix

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you something.. Betting is not silly at all, if you already know the outcome it’s not a bet.

 

So when the people who actually work in this field and conduct experiments in this say that all experimental results so far, and most if not all of the theoretical work, indicates that you cannot transmit information in the colloquial sense of a communications device using quantum entanglement... How do you know the outcome is that they can? Because we know how to use electrons in silicon and lightbulbs?

 

What you do is, you make assumptions and build a Hadron Collider, it’s not a bet but an investment in information.

 

I don't understand the relevance.

As stated: several experiments are ongoing in this area - though not at the LHC, no. You don't use a collider to "make" entangled particles.

 

Again: the experimental results, all of them as far as I've seen, indicate that no - you cannot use entanglement as a superluminal communications device. (And no, slowing light down through putting it in an other medium does not qualify - there's mediums where light is slower than you can walk, so under than definition your postman is an FTL communications device. :P )

 

I hope you do realise that our world is composed of invisible reality.

 

Yes?

So?

Parts of reality take place in scales that are imperceptible to us, and some hypotheses (notable the string hypotheses, but also others) invite and/or require a wider "bulk" or multiverse to reality that is invisible to us and/or occur in dimensions that are non-accessible to us.

 

This does not have relevance here.

 

Furthermore can you actually comprehend the meaning of experiment by Alain Aspect that produced a physical proof to resolve the 50 years of EPR debate?

 

I suspect I understand it better than you, yes.

 

Have you actually read it, yourself?

 

I would suggest that rather than sourcing a random tripod site, you read the actual paper.

The publication is Physical Review Letters, Volume 49, Number 2, July 14 1982. You can purchase it at the PRL website for $25 or hopefully find it at your local university library. (If you get it in "hardcopy" at the library, you are looking for pages 91 through 94.)

 

I think you'll find that a much better source than that garbage tripod site. (Hilarious read thought.) I assume you know that random internet sites are worthless for getting reliable sources on military hardware, why would you assume that someone that can't even afford a 2 dollar/month hosting plan and a 10 dollar/year domain name registration would be able to give you reliable information on the actual research?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monotwix, it's important to understand that there is no such thing of simultaneity between two spatially separated points. So the problem is, if "instantaneous" communication is possible, it will violate causality. It will be possible to send information into the past. One observer will see information transmitted simultaneously, and other observer in a different frame of reference will see it go back in time; yet another observer in a different frame of reference could see it go forward in time.

 

So we don't know if the causality is a fundamental law of the universe, but I'd say it's a good bet :) In this case the overwhelming majority of quantum physicists agree that you cannot send information back in time with quantum entanglement. It's also important to understand- just because some random, nobody university professor somewhere is doing some kind of experiment- that doesn't mean that the experiment is legitimate science. Once you get tenure, you can do all sorts of stupid crap. I've heard of folks working on anti gravity/perpetual motion machines, which is pretty much the same level of whackiness as instantaneous communication using quantum entanglement :no_sad:

 

You talk about unpredictability and how we should bet on the unknown, and then you make broad assumptions and statements that say it's unlikely that a government would fund interstellar travel. How can you know this? How can you know what society will be like in 200 or 300 years? Maybe we'll have robotic space factories mass producing space equipment from resources mined out of the asteroids, and fusion pulse rockets that cruise folks around the solar system from Mars to Earth in a few weeks rather than months or years. Maybe it will be a simple matter to "uprate" one of these fusion pulse engines and so that it can deliver a small scientific payload to a nearby star system.

 

Personally, I think you're concerning yourself too much with fringe ideas and slight possibilities, and not fully considering the implications of the known and proven physical laws. We don't need unlikely fringe physics to visit the stars, and given the unknowns of how society will develop, in this case towards the utilization of space, it's a little premature to make judgements about whether or not it will be one day affordable to send out nuclear propelled spacecraft to the stars.


Edited by Speed

Intelligent discourse can only begin with the honest admission of your own fallibility.

Member of the Virtual Tactical Air Group: http://vtacticalairgroup.com/

Lua scripts and mods:

MIssion Scripting Tools (Mist): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98616

Slmod version 7.0 for DCS: World: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=80979

Now includes remote server administration tools for kicking, banning, loading missions, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair Speed, the relevant experiment is good and real, not crazy.

 

It just doesn't say what Monotwix think it does.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...