Faster than light communication and breaking entanglement

It's becoming increasingly clear that FTL communication is possible. There's often a religious knee jerk reaction when you mention FTL communication but there shouldn't be. The key to remember here is information isn't traveling faster than light. It isn't traveling at all through intervening space and therefore causality is secured.

So if you have an entangled pair of photons and Alice gets one in New York and Bob has the other in LA., the information from Alice to Bob doesn't travel anywhere, it's just instantly goes from Alice to Bob's location. You can do these things through teleportation, using the uncertainty principle or breaking entanglement. There's already talk of things like a quantum internet or some sort of quantum communication device. With breaking entanglement, you're not checking for things like spin up or spin down but the signal to noise ratio. When you have entanglement and strong correlations between the particles you have a stronger signal to noise ratio. When entanglement is broken, you have a weaker signal to noise ratio.

So you have a set up like this.

Bob and Alice have 5 entangled pairs of photons. Five goes to Alice and 5 goes to Bob. Their computers have 5 information channels. Say Alice wanted to send Bob an A. In the first information channel she breaks entanglement. When Bob's computer checks his information channels. His first channel has a weaker signal to noise ratio than the other 4 channels and he knows Alice is sending him an A.

Say Alice wants to sent him the letter D. She would break entanglement in the first two information channels. When Bob checks his information channel, the first two channels has a weaker signal to noise ratio than the last 3 channels so he knows Alice is sending him a D.

So say Alice was chillin' in her bikini on the Sun enjoying the warm weather and she wanted to send Bob a D. She can send Bob a D instantly while it will take light from the sun 8 minutes to reach Bob.

So the photons state of spin up or spin down wouldn't be transmitting the information but the strength or lack there of, when it comes to the signal to noise ratio would.

This might also open up communication with the past. If a quantum internet or some sort of quantum communication device is used in 2020 then in 2025 a person might be able to send information to themselves from 2020.

I actually think bob would send alice the D... especially if she is in a bikini...

a reply to: okamitengu

Damn, that's funny.

On a serious note, and in the spirit of the OP... I think we have already proven that FTL fundamentally exists. Our now, second generation of Quantum computers, actually available to research labs, have passed some incredible tests.

The quantum reality is about to blossom on us, and I wonder if we are ready for what it will make possible.

originally posted by: okamitengu
I actually think bob would send alice the D... especially if she is in a bikini...

you forgot....BOW CHIKA WOW WOOOWW.

a reply to: neoholographic

Awesome read


You seem to have a pretty decent understanding of the topic. Is this due to education, POOIAD (personal obsessive online information assimilation disorder)?

If it's the later, can you point to references online for further reading?


Thanks!

Often wondered and I'll ask it here. Aren't all photons entangled with each other? If everything we know in this universe was created in the big bang, wasn't everything connected at that point, thus entangled in terms of quantum entanglement? Nice OP.

I have a question - with the 5 pairs of entangled photons each is given, if you break entanglement in one of these channels to send a letter, how do you re-entangle the photons now they are separated?

swear to god I was about to say the exact same thing

a reply to: okamitengu

Why would there be a religious knee-jerk reaction to faster than light anything?

a reply to: neoholographic

I'll just leave this here.


astroengineer.wordpress.com...

An interesting story.

originally posted by: neoholographic

So say Alice was chillin' in her bikini on the Sun enjoying the warm weather and she wanted to send Bob a D. She can send Bob a D instantly while it will take light from the sun 8 minutes to reach Bob.

im pretty sure this is a joke thread right??

originally posted by: Aleister
Often wondered and I'll ask it here. Aren't all photons entangled with each other? If everything we know in this universe was created in the big bang, wasn't everything connected at that point, thus entangled in terms of quantum entanglement? Nice OP.

Yep everything is connected, a good example is dreams we are both the seer and seen.

Our brain functions in the waking state in the same manner.

Another good example is superposition which states everything is everywhere, only by percieving an object somewhere does it actually seem to be there.

originally posted by: neoholographic
So the photons state of spin up or spin down wouldn't be transmitting the information but the strength or lack there of, when it comes to the signal to noise ratio would.

My understanding does NOT match this. When determining the spin of one you 'transmit' the spin of the other. There is no known 'strength' of spin, it is called 'up' or 'down'.

Your use of 'signal to noise ratio' I don't understand at all. You must be using the terms quite differently than the way they are defined.

This might also open up communication with the past. If a quantum internet or some sort of quantum communication device is used in 2020 then in 2025 a person might be able to send information to themselves from 2020.

This isn't true...again, from my understanding. You entangle the pair at time 1. As time passes for one it also passes for the entangled partner. There is no way to communicate backwards in time. Both parts of the entanglement move through time at...well...the same time!

originally posted by: stumason
I have a question - with the 5 pairs of entangled photons each is given, if you break entanglement in one of these channels to send a letter, how do you re-entangle the photons now they are separated?

You don't really 'break' the entanglement. You simply determine the spin of one and know what the spin of the entangled partner will be by doing that.

After you determine the spin the pairing becomes set I believe, so you can not re-use them over and over.

Of course the whole effect is really just now being studied carefully.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

You have it all wrong. Nobody is talking about spin. It's really simple and most people know that you can measure the strength of correlation as signal to noise. Stronger correlation means you have a stronger signal to noise ratio. Here's a recent experiment that was done.

Viewpoint: Don’t Cry over Broken Entanglement

The simplest example of how this can work involves two entangled pulses of light, each containing just one photon. “Alice” (the sender) keeps one pulse and sends the other one towards her target, “Bob.” When Bob sends back the pulse, Alice interferometrically recombines it with the light she kept. Here is where the difference between classical and quantum signals becomes important: With classical light, time and frequency can’t both be simultaneously localized, as the Fourier transform of a pulse that is sharply localized in time is spread out over all frequencies. In contrast, if the sent and retained signals are truly entangled, they will be simultaneously strongly correlated in both arrival time and frequency. The much stronger initial correlation of the entangled beams allows reflected photons to be distinguished from background photons with a much higher signal to noise when they are “decoded” by recombining them with the retained signal. (The decoder is basically the reverse of the original entangler—a sort of “disentangler”—which only lets through the tiny residual correlation that matches the original entanglement.) Even though the entanglement doesn’t survive, a classical correlation survives that is stronger than would exist in the absence of entanglement in the first place. The enhancement in signal to noise is by a factor d, where d is the number of optical modes involved in the entanglement. In this way, the presence (or absence) of an object can be determined with far less light than a classical experiment would require.

physics.aps.org...

Again, it has nothing to do with spin, it's about the strength of correlations between entangled pairs. If you have an entangled particle pair and you expose one of the pairs to the environment, you break entanglement and increase the noise which will weaken the signal to noise ratio. So again, it's not a measure of polarization but of correlation based on the signal to noise ratio.

originally posted by: stumason
I have a question - with the 5 pairs of entangled photons each is given, if you break entanglement in one of these channels to send a letter, how do you re-entangle the photons now they are separated?

You don't

a reply to: Aleister

It's the hottest thing in physics today. The now , Super Huge, Hadron Collider is going back online to help find out more about how and why.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: stumason
I have a question - with the 5 pairs of entangled photons each is given, if you break entanglement in one of these channels to send a letter, how do you re-entangle the photons now they are separated?

You don't really 'break' the entanglement. You simply determine the spin of one and know what the spin of the entangled partner will be by doing that.

After you determine the spin the pairing becomes set I believe, so you can not re-use them over and over.

Of course the whole effect is really just now being studied carefully.

Act of measuring will indeed break entanglement.

a reply to: dragonridr

Nope, you don't need to measure spin to break entanglement.

I suggest you go and read up on things like entanglement breaking and signal to noise ratios when dealing with information channels.

a reply to: dragonridr

That is the conundrum. The mere act of observing it, fixes it's polarity. This makes the communications part extremely difficult in method.