Jump to content

(SPLIT) Quantum Entanglement and communication


monotwix

Recommended Posts

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

 

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

 

Which is what? I had heard that someone was going to try to send actual data back in time a few years ago, that they were still trying to set up the experiment (of course :D). Is that not "this" experiment? I'd like if I could get a link to whatever this is :)

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

Link is in post 23.

 

I have a copy, but the paper is still under copyright so I can't give it to you. (How I wish physics would have something similar to PubMed.) It's one of the papers referred to by Wikipedia's page about Alain Aspect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect ) when it states that:

 

"In the early 1980s, while working on his PhD thesis[1] from the lesser academic rank of lecturer, he performed the elusive "Bell test experiments" that showed that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen's reductio ad absurdum of quantum mechanics, namely that it implied 'ghostly action at a distance', did in fact appear to be realised when two particles were separated by an arbitrarily large distance (see EPR paradox). A correlation between their wave functions remained, as they were once part of the same wave-function that was not disturbed before one of the child particles was measured.

 

[...]

 

Stated more simply, the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance" by Einstein (who doubted the physical reality of this effect). However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random."

 

EDIT:

Should also be noted that the paper, in it's conclusions, states that:

 

"Only two loopholes remain open for advocates of realistic theories without action at a distance. THe first one, exploiting the low efficiencies of detectors, could be rules out by a feasible experiment. The second one, exploiting the static character of all previous experiments, could also be ruled out by a timing experiment with variable analyzers now in progress."

 

And of course, the paper doesn't mention actual communication in the colloquial sense even once. Not once. What we've got here is some random tripod site whose author has read something they didn't understand and subsequently gone on a rampage of ill informed extrapolation. Do check out the Tripod site Monotwix linked earlier when he mentioned this experiment - it's hilarity. I quote:

 

"In the Universe of inseparable vibrating pattern, the true and eternal reality is the reality 'at the speed of light' or 'the reality of light'. Our physical reality in this time-space continuum is only temporary - an apparent reality.

THE ABSOLUTE IS BEYOND 'THE REALITY OF LIGHT', WHERE TIME STOPS, THEREFORE PATTERNS CEASE TO BE CYCLIC, PERIODIC OR TIME DEPENDENT, AND SPACE SHRINKS; HENCE SEPARATENESS CEASES TO EXIST.

 

TIME-SPACE AND THE WHOLE COSMOS BECOME SINGULARITY, THE ABSOLUTE INFINITE ONE, THE UNIVERSAL GOD." [sic]


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

As a PhD student in astronomy this entire thread amused me highly.

 

I can imagine. :D

 

(Though this isn't really astronomy. But I assume you guys branch out to related matters a lot on the road.)

[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

Link is in post 23.

 

Stated more simply, the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance" by Einstein (who doubted the physical reality of this effect). However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random."[/i]

 

 

One way I like to conceptualize the positron-electron quantum state is as a single wavefunction which happens to occupy a large volume of space. Before you propogated this wavefunction you would need to have life hax in order to know the result and thus use it as a meaningful communication mechanism and I am pretty sure life hax don't exist yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can imagine. :D

 

(Though this isn't really astronomy. But I assume you guys branch out to related matters a lot on the road.)

 

We cover these concepts in undergraduate, however it has been a while lol that I have specifically dealt with this issue! One thing I might add that I have learned is that it is not trivial to conceptualize mathematical/physical theroem, hence why we have various interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation being the current frontrunner).


Edited by Azraeil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, I think Dawkins expressed it well with his "Middle World" concept.

[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

From BELL'S THEOREM : THE NAIVE VIEW OF AN EXPERIMENTALIST by A. Aspect :

 

 

"It may be concluded that quantum mechanics has some non-locality in it, and that this non-local caracter is vindicated by experiments. It is very important however to note that such a non-locality has a very subtle nature, and in particular that it cannot be used for faster than light telegraphy. It is indeed simple to show that in a scheme where one tries to use EPR correlations to send a message, it is necessary to send a complementary information (about the orientation of a polarizer) via a normal channel, which of course does not violate causality."

(How I wish physics would have something similar to PubMed.)
You have Arxiv and Spires but yes It's a shame that some public research results (Orsay is a public university, I studied here) are not free.
Edited by Togg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, very nice, I hadn't run across that one. Thanks!

[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 don't understand the relevance.

 

I suppose you can rip the sentences out of context and break them down as you like, it’s your joy but you will not understand the relevance.

You also mentioned about the source of information being hilarious, well it’s not a proof of concept, I only googled it but what it says about the particle A and B is more or less the same as what it says in the 10 years old book I’ve found.

It shows the experiment of the two photons being fired in opposite directions through switches and filters and whatever happens to photon A also happens to photon B, so I understand that the separation speed is twice the speed of light and yet photon A knows what photon B is doing.

Was that experiment a failure or was it disproved by another experiment?

So that was in 1982 but that wasn’t the only one, similar experiment was conduced by John Clauser at Berkeley in 1978. Do you really suggest that I should get all the books and begin the study?

 

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.

 

I didn’t exactly say we should bet on the unknown.

In 200 300 years people would face the same problem if it takes 1000 years to reach for the nearest stars and another 1000 years transmit a message.

How likely is it that some one will invest in 2000 years 300 years from now?

In this day and age I can make assumptions based on my opinion and current probabilities and I would bet on future possibilities rather than current facts, for me to see someone invest in 2000 years program is as likely as warp drive.

If that’s crazy assumption then I rest my case.

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

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.

.

 

Niels Bohr said we all part of the same system and cant I see a paradox in sending information instantaneously you not sending matter, would a theory suggest that you would go back in time using warp drive.

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you can rip the sentences out of context and break them down as you like, it’s your joy but you will not understand the relevance.

 

In this case, this exemple (the LHC) is wrong (or at least not the best one). LHC studies lot of things but not quantum entanglement. If you want to study quantum entanglement, you have to build a dedicated experiment (which is probably cheaper than a LHC and take less room :D ). Each experiment have a goal and you need more than simple assumptions to build it, I mean a lot of work in theory.

 

Or you were speaking in a general way : idea --> experiment --> result, it was not very clear. But you still need a strong theory before to start something, specially when millions or billions of €, $ or £ are involved.

 

It shows the experiment of the two photons being fired in opposite directions through switches and filters and whatever happens to photon A also happens to photon B, so I understand that the separation speed is twice the speed of light and yet photon A knows what photon B is doing.
The critical point (like all experiments) is the interpretation of what you observed. It's particularly true in quantum mechanics where the intuition (which comes from classic mechanic) is sometimes wrong.

 

Relativity says nothing travels faster than light. Here, rightly it seems there is nothing between the two particles. :)


Edited by Togg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, this exemple (the LHC) is wrong (or at least not the best one). LHC studies lot of things but not quantum entanglement. If you want to study quantum entanglement, you have to build a dedicated experiment (which is probably cheaper than a LHC and take less room :D ). Each experiment have a goal and you need more than simple assumptions to build it, I mean a lot of work in theory.

 

Or you were speaking in a general way : idea --> experiment --> result, it was not very clear. But you still need a strong theory before to start something, specially when millions or billions of €, $ or £ are involved.

:)

 

Yeah LHC may not be the best example but I was trying point out how important the unknown is, it worth billions of funding.

You cant just turn to government and say I want 8 billion euros because I don’t know something, you’d have to convince everyone that the generated information could worth billions and if you tell them the information results will arrive 140 later, they will tell you to go away.

I think that’s my assumption anyway but again may not be a good example.

When you launch a telescope into space you simply don’t know what you are going to find but the chances are good that you will find something the same can not be said about 1000 years of interstellar travel, the chances are also good that people will know more stuff in 300 years and I would bet on that.

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the LHC wasn't built in the "unknown". It was built to test a theory, a very good theory - specifically the Standard Model. The SM predicted the Higgs Boson, which has as yet not been isolated and verified, but since pretty much "everything else" in the SM has been confirmed there was very good reason to believe that the LHC could find it. (There's also other experiments ongoing at the LHC, for example some work with neutrinos.)

 

Similarly, space telescopes are launched not because someone says "wonder what we'll find". They have a very specific mission and specific reasons for why they need to be in space.

 

Also, I still don't see why quantum entanglement would be relevant to the question of interstellar travel for exploratory purposes.

 

It shows the experiment of the two photons being fired in opposite directions through switches and filters and whatever happens to photon A also happens to photon B, so I understand that the separation speed is twice the speed of light and yet photon A knows what photon B is doing.

 

No, the experiment didn't fail. However, it did not test superluminal communication. The paper doesn't even mention the possibility. (Again, read the paper!) From the conclusions of the paper Togg listed:

 

"It is very important however to note [...] in particular that it cannot be used for faster than light telegraphy."

 

You can't take vague references to research made by a scientist to claim the exact opposite of what his results state! In fact, continuing the quote:

 

"It is indeed simple to show that [...] it is necessary to send a complementary information [...] via a normal channel, which of course does not violate causality."

 

This means that it is simple to show that no, you cannot achieve faster-than-light communication through exploiting this phenomenon, because in order to get anything meaningful you need parallell data through normal methods - that is, either light, or slower-than-light. He showed it himself in a 1981 paper, before the publishing of the paper referred to by your source! He has proven you cannot do that. (Relevant paper is: A. Aspect, Expériences basées sur les inégalités de Bell, J. Physique Colloque C2, 940 (1981).)

 

So in sum: the experiments you refer to do not say what you think they say, and the same researchers have in related work shown that what you think was proven as a possiblity was actually proven to not be possible.

[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

Relativity says nothing travels faster than light. Here, rightly it seems there is nothing between the two particles. :)

 

You aren't conceptualizing the experiment correctly. Rather than considering the particles as separate entities you need to consider both particles as part of one inseparable quantum system (hence the term entangled state). When you measure the spin of one particle you're actually measuring the state of the entire quantum system, which just so happens to be spread over a large area of space. At no point in time can you force a specific outcome without wavefunction collapse, and thus results you will measure are completely random and whilst in perfect agreement with an observer on the other side of the wavefunction, can not be used to communicate with said observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(There's also other experiments ongoing at the LHC, for example some work with neutrinos.)
I think it's CNGS and OPERA. They don't belong to the LHC but they are at CERN. CNGS starts from the SPS (LHC injector) :)

 

 

You aren't conceptualizing the experiment correctly. Rather than considering the particles as separate entities you need to consider both particles as part of one inseparable quantum system (hence the term entangled state). When you measure the spin of one particle you're actually measuring the state of the entire quantum system, which just so happens to be spread over a large area of space. At no point in time can you force a specific outcome without wavefunction collapse, and thus results you will measure are completely random and whilst in perfect agreement with an observer on the other side of the wavefunction, can not be used to communicate with said observer.
I just said that there is no physical signal observed between the two particles. So the laws of physics are preserved.
Edited by Togg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just said that there is no physical signal observed between the two particles. So the laws of physics are preserved.

 

Probably a language barrier thing here, but could you explain your meaning of 'physical signal observed' and how that relates to the preserving the laws of physics in this context? I don't quite follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you observe the quantum etanglement between the 2 photons, your don't detect a signal between so no information. It seems there is nothing (from a non quantum point a view), no interaction between them. Laws of physics are preserved because even if it's seem an instantaneous interaction, there is no information exchanged (so no causality violation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To express the above in perhaps different words:

 

From a "Middle World" (classical) perspective, we would expect that a "signal" of some sort needs to travel for one object to affect another (for particles we would perhaps expect a boson?). Since we would observe the two particles as precisely two particles, we would expect to see something like that - however since the two observed particles are actually part of the same quantum state, it is not required and it would in that case be easiest to think of it such that it is our perception of the particles as separate particles that is the error rather than the lack of observed transmission of information between them.

 

Somewhat right? Not sure if I just mangled it even more there...

 

Like the classic quote attributed to Feynman: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. :D

[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

When you observe the quantum etanglement between the 2 photons, your don't detect a signal between so no information. It seems there is nothing (from a non quantum point a view), no interaction between them. Laws of physics are preserved because even if it's seem an instantaneous interaction, there is no information exchanged (so no causality violation).

 

Ok cool. Seems like we are on the same page. The reason there is no 'signal' (gauge boson) is because the information exchange occurred before the particles separated spatially. Until their wavefunction is collapsed (by interaction or 'measurement') they evolve as ONE system. As you say there is no information exchange so no causal violations.

 

I think where people get confused is equating wavefunction collapse to information exchange, one can occur instantaneously whereas the other cannot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really want me to do that?

 

dogtags.jpg

 

:D

[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

  • 4 weeks later...

Lets assume the scale of the Milky Way to be 1000 millimetres and the distance of the light travelled for 100 years to be II 1mm, so lets fire up the propulsion and see if it possible,

that is to say that until you get the results from its destination point it will remain a theory.

 

Anyone could observe the electromagnetic field 300 or 1000 years ago but no one could explain it, everyone and every thing such as photons are effected by Newton’s gravity and Einstein’s relativity,

but that’s not the whole story about the gravity and the rest, is it,.?

 

Higgs field used to be a theory and now (aprox 99.97%) fact, currently that’s more fact than a probe in another solar system.

 

The major question I think would be to know whether it’s possible to cover enough space within human existence or if it’s possible to go far beyond.

Since there isn’t a definitive/proven answer, no one is certain 100% to even answer about non-locality, dark energy or expansion faster than light.

 

These are lectures, can be interesting or boring.

 

Non-locality with regards to some information:

 

The mystery of empty space some time before the Higgs being approved but still on topic:

 

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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