It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faster than light communication and breaking entanglement

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
And to add one more thing to this Faster-Than-Light communications debate,
it seems that a DISTANCE LIMIT to quantum communications has been found
by these researchers:


See general overview of quantum entanglement speed limit:
www.gizmag.com...

See PDF paper:

Bounding the speed of `spooky action at a distance'

by

Prof. Juan Yin
and others
University of Science and Technology
Shanghai, China

arxiv.org...

This article brings forth the position that
within 10,000 light years distance between
any entangled pair of atoms, the reflection
of quantum state change is INSTANTANEOUS.

Any distance OVER 10,000 light years SEEMS
to have a slight delay in terms of the change
in state of one entangled atom being reflected
in the other more distant atom.

The total distance of where the rate of change is
human-level noticeable is as of yet undetermined.

This means for super long distance communications
of say 100,000 or One Million light years there may
be a noticeable but not objectionable time lag
between the sending and receiving of messages.

On a practical basis for now, this is NOT an issue
since we haven't yet publicly gone EVEN ONE
light year beyond Earth!




posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: dragonridr

Here some images and links to papers and articles
which give a background on Quantum Well Entanglement
and the Manufacturing of such Faster-Than-Light (FTL)

Does one of them say something about sending useful information faster than light? I already knew random information could be sent faster than light; this isn't a matter of debate. I went through them quickly and didn't see anything that mentioned useful information being sent faster than light.


---

This article should give you some joy in terms of being ABLE to project
useful information faster than light over a long distance.


Quantum teleportation achieved over 16 km:
phys.org...

This experiment DID NOT use quantum wells but rather photonic teleportation
but there IS an extrapolation that can be made to trap photons (instead of Xenon
Atom spin states) in quantum wells and then communicate the changes in photon
state over free air.

The method I have outlined is a VERY PRELIMINARY series of experiments
done by a number of agencies INCLUDING Toshiba, NEC, JPL Max Planck Institute
and others who are using Quantum Wells to "teleport" quantum-level changes of
a Q-Bit over ANY distance! A Q-Bit can be made of MANY types of quanta including
a spinning atom, a photonic wave, a phase change in a molecular-sized medium
so my quantum well illustration only tells you HOW to isolate any given quanta
from the outside world and HOW to POSSIBLY READ FROM and WRITE TO said quanta!

This is the BEST PAPER I have personally found to illustrate and PROVE
the concept of teleporting USEFUL INFORMATION of entangled quanta
over at least some useful distances.

"Quantum teleportation over hyper entangled states"
by
Ankur Raina and Shayan Garani Srinivasa
Dept. of Electronic Systems Engineering
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

See Link:

www.ita.ucsd.edu...

I KNOW there are other peer-reviewed papers but I have
NOT finished looking and reading through them yet!

I will have to get back to you on that once I find OTHER papers!
edit on 2015/2/19 by StargateSG7 because: sp

edit on 2015/2/19 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

What does any of this have to do with anything I've said?

Let me highlight a key portion that you must of skipped over.

Bob is now looking at these three channels who each have a high signal to noise ratio and are strongly correlated between arrival time and frequency. This can be determined beforehand because you're not sending information from Alice to Bob based on spin.

So Bob or Alice wouldn't see any randomness because they already know these things. It's really that simple. You're all over the place hoping something sticks but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Again, it's not dependent on spin. It's not dependent on entanglement-non-entanglement.


So, then if it's not based on entanglement what is it dependent on? What's so special then? You're not the one giving precise enough details about the experiment and measurement algorithm.



Everything you're saying is basically a hodge podge of gobbledy gook.



Simply show why Alice and Bob couldn't communicate this way. In the set up listed in my last post, walk us through the same set up and show what will stop Alice from sending information to Bob in the way described in the last post.


Nothing, but it goes at light speed. Alice sends noise and then sends not-noise. Those photons get there at time >= D/c with D being the distance between alice and bob.




It's like reading a post by Ted Kaczynski. You're on a fishing expedition and you're not making any sense.


Just another nonsensical statement. Yes, it's based on entanglement just not spin up/spin down. I have been saying this over and over again and I don't know what's so hard for you to understand. We see some of these things in the emerging field of Quantum Biology.

At the end of the day, it's like talking to a brick wall because you fail to grasp anything I'm saying yet you keep asking the same open ended, nonsensical questions.

You said I'm not giving precise details. Of course I have. I have told you and others over and over again how it works. You show that you don't understand what I'm talking about when you say it's not based on entanglement. Of course it's based on entanglement, you're just not encoding information on spin up/spin down.

You can transmit information on spin up/spin down but it will not be useful. It will be random. It's still one bit of information that can be transmitted faster than light. So you can send a string of nonsensical data.

That's all you need though.

That nonsensical data can be strongly correlated and you can see this in things like arrival times, frequency and signal to noise.

That same nonsensical data in a separate channel will have have different arrival times, frequency and signal to noise when entanglement is broken.

So again, you have Alice and Bob on a 3 channel set up. All 3 channels are strongly correlated and you know this BEFOREHAND. These channels are 111.

When Alice wants to send Bob a message of 011, 101 or 110 faster than light, she just breaks entanglement in one of the channels. She's not communicating to Bob based on spin up/spin down. You just need spin up/spin down to send random bits of information in each channel.

So, you have to stop with these open ended silly questions.

If I go to Sea World and I come back and tell you information about my trip to Sea World, you can't say,"You're not giving me precise information."

That's open ended and meaningless unless you tell me precisely what information I'm not giving you. You already let me know that you don't understand what I'm saying when you say:

So, then if it's not based on entanglement what is it dependent on?

Of course it's based on quantum entanglement. You couldn't send information faster than light without it. The information between Alice and Bob is just not encoded on spin. What's so hard for you to grasp?
edit on 19-2-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
This is the BEST PAPER I have personally found to illustrate and PROVE
the concept of teleporting USEFUL INFORMATION of entangled quanta
over at least some useful distances.

"Quantum teleportation over hyper entangled states"

www.ita.ucsd.edu...
Did you notice they keep referring to classical communication also? If there are any claims of communicating useful information faster than light, you'll have to point them out to me, because I didn't see them.
edit on 19-2-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think the paragraph you are having a problem with is

"...After encoding both send their qubits
to B which performs joint measurement. Joint measurement
can be done on compatible observables. This leads to the
transmission of four classical bits from source to destination
nodes [24]. If we compare it with fully entangled tripartite
state, we note that three classical bits can be sent from source
nodes to destination node [25]. An additional bit advantage
comes from the use of additional degree of freedom for
encoding." (Page 4)

...BUT...the previous paragraph in that text SEEMS to explain
the reasoning as to WHY they still use classical information
exchange:

"...If nodes A and C act as
transmitters, then A and C can encode classical information
by applying Pauli rotations on their qubits.."

--

The paper outlines a NEED and MEANS for encoding and decoding
CLASSICAL information (i.e. a HARD ON/OFF 1/0 Binary Bit)
TO AND FROM an entangled pair of quanta of any base type
(i.e. photons, gas atoms, etc.)

They are talking of NOT the entangled pair of quanta bit
but rather how to ENCODE/DECODE the data that the
entangled quanta represents without BREAKING the
quantum entanglement!

And when I look at the equations on the same page,
it looks like the PROBABILITIES of a given number of
quantum spin-state samples being in an UP or DOWN
state is distributed in a Gaussian manner which means
we COULD LIKELY use a software-based convolution filter
to EDGE-ENHANCE the probabilities and thus determine
if a SERIES of quantum spin-states TRULY represents
a HARD Binary ON/OFF or UP/DOWN state.
(see right-side paragraph convolution matrix filter set)

Since ALL quantum teleportation of spin-states is "noisy"
you have to find some manner using software (or hardware)
to determine on a balance of probabilities whether a series
of quantum state samples represents Binary ON or OFF.

In my field of study we can use a SOBEL edge detection
convolution filter (2D-XY version) to ENHANCE the peaks
of any given sample distribution. ERGO we now have a
VIABLE and USEFUL quantum communications system!

Using an analogy, if I have 100 samples of a given quantum
state taken within a period of say 1000 picoseconds
(i.e. one nanosecond!) what is the GIVEN DISTRIBUTION
of Quantum Spin-State UP results (i.e. a Binary ON state)
versus the given distribution of Quantum Spin-State DOWN
results (i.e. a Binary OFF state) within that 1000 picosecond
time domain. I can use the Time-Stamp of each quantum state
sample and measure how many PEAKS and VALLEYS are along
that 1000 picosecond time domain. If the MAJORITY of UP
quantum spin-states fall within the MIDDLE of the 1000
picosecond time domain that is considered a Gaussian Distribution
(i.e. a Bell Curve) and can therefore REPRESENT a probable ON state.
Conversely, if the majority of DOWN quantum spin-states fall within
the middle of the 1000 picosecond time domain, that is considered
a probable OFF state. If we sample X number spin states over a given
short period of time we can aggregate the results of those series
if quantum spin-state samples into representations of Binary ON/OFF
states which will form individual bytes organized into data streams
Integers, real numbers, audio and video and text messages transferred
at Gigabytes-or-Terabytes-Per-Second data rates over ANY distance!

See Sobel Edge Detection Operator and Filter:
en.wikipedia.org...

See OTHER edge detector info:
en.wikipedia.org...

Hope that helps!
edit on 2015/2/19 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Be very carefull when you quote Chinese articles the state ie China will put these out and like in the case of this experiment the experiment says it's at least 10000 times faster. This was all ready known and the experiment was inconclusive. But the Chinese government does a press release saying they set a limit but failed to mention it was the lower limit.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I noticed that also the wells are nothing more than a switch but I'm going to look it over this weekend but I don't see anything that doesn't require data to unencrypt our data set.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

It says RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE that the
10,000 times light speed is the LOWER LIMIT
for "spooky action at a distance" !!!

What was left UNSAID was the amount of
DELAY between a quantum state change
and its reflection in the faraway entangled
pair over a measured series of values BEYOND
10,000 times light speed.

The Chinese scientists had reached an upper limit
of time-domain measurement accuracy and therefore
could NOT extrapolate their findings to anything higher
than 10,000x light speed.

I have no problem in this case with the Chinese researchers
since their experiments are repeatable by others and SIMILAR
(although not quite the sames!) values were observed in other
research. (Max Planck, Zurich, etc)

Since humans are publicly not able to get past even
ONE light year away from Earth, we don't really have
to worry about this study's implications. Only once
humans are exploring areas FARTHER than 10,000
light years from Earth does this quantum teleportation
speed limit become a problem!





edit on 2015/2/19 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: dragonridr

It says RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE that the
10,000 times light speed is the LOWER LIMIT
for "spooky action at a distance" !!!

What was left UNSAID was the amount of
DELAY between a quantum state change
and its reflection in the faraway entangled
pair over a measured series of values BEYOND
10,000 times light speed.

The Chinese scientists had reached an upper limit
of time-domain measurement accuracy and therefore
could NOT extrapolate their findings to anything higher
than 10,000x light speed.

I have no problem in this case with the Chinese researchers
since their experiments are repeatable by others and SIMILAR
(although not quite the sames!) values were observed in other
research. (Max Planck, Zurich, etc)






They released this but it's non news to spice it up to the media they released it as setting a distance entangled particles communicate but the actual paper said no such thing. This was a release of known data we knew the lower limit. What we don't know is if there is a max speed or if it's instant. The Chinese government released this as a look what we're doing and tragically what a paper says and what the government releases to the public are usually different.

The Chinese government has been known to make some wild claims in slow news cycles.Not sure if it's them or there science writer either way all ways look at the paper Itself.Like here the article made it seem like something it's not.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I highly suspect the TRANSLATOR of the paper
made some basic errors in terms of the descriptive
portions but the MATH and DATA is spot-on other
than some minor variations due to variances in
time clocks used to measure the "speed of transfer".

In this case the Chinese politburo is not interested
in this type of paper because there is no specific
military or political gain to be made.

In Earth terms, whether the limit of quantum
communications is 10,000x Light or One Million
times Light speed is irrelevant since we have
NO means to STORE OR PROCESS the amount
of data that could be sent even at the
LOWEST theoretical limits!



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: dragonridr

Here some images and links to papers and articles
which give a background on Quantum Well Entanglement
and the Manufacturing of such Faster-Than-Light (FTL)

Does one of them say something about sending useful information faster than light? I already knew random information could be sent faster than light; this isn't a matter of debate. I went through them quickly and didn't see anything that mentioned useful information being sent faster than light.


---

This article should give you some joy in terms of being ABLE to project
useful information faster than light over a long distance.


Quantum teleportation achieved over 16 km:
phys.org...

This experiment DID NOT use quantum wells but rather photonic teleportation
but there IS an extrapolation that can be made to trap photons (instead of Xenon
Atom spin states) in quantum wells and then communicate the changes in photon
state over free air.

The method I have outlined is a VERY PRELIMINARY series of experiments
done by a number of agencies INCLUDING Toshiba, NEC, JPL Max Planck Institute
and others who are using Quantum Wells to "teleport" quantum-level changes of
a Q-Bit over ANY distance! A Q-Bit can be made of MANY types of quanta including
a spinning atom, a photonic wave, a phase change in a molecular-sized medium
so my quantum well illustration only tells you HOW to isolate any given quanta
from the outside world and HOW to POSSIBLY READ FROM and WRITE TO said quanta!

This is the BEST PAPER I have personally found to illustrate and PROVE
the concept of teleporting USEFUL INFORMATION of entangled quanta
over at least some useful distances.

"Quantum teleportation over hyper entangled states"
by
Ankur Raina and Shayan Garani Srinivasa
Dept. of Electronic Systems Engineering
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

See Link:

www.ita.ucsd.edu...

I KNOW there are other peer-reviewed papers but I have
NOT finished looking and reading through them yet!

I will have to get back to you on that once I find OTHER papers!


Ok I looked it over this is not a method to transfer data on one end will always look like random data until you compare the results with the other site. Meaning we still have to send a signal to interpret the data the quantum well is just a switch to change our digital signal to light or light to digital quite ingenious though does away with the need of a telescope to focus our laser beam for long distance communication.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Yes, that's why I asked "Did you notice they keep referring to classical communication also? ". A lot of this faster than light research seems to work out such that the classical communication is part of what they are doing, meaning it ends up being limited by light speed. I'm glad you noticed that even though it seems to escape some other people.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for backing up everything I said.

Again, I have explained this over and over again and laid out how it will be done. I personally think some of you guys don't have a clue as to what I'm saying so you go on these silly fishing expeditions and quote things that you don't understand.


There are now three of us who think you haven't explained your details fully enough to understand it.

I invite the gentle readership to answer a question: does anybody else understand neo's setup, and could they explain it to us in sufficient detail to understand what is being measured and computed and explain it to us in a way we can undersatnd.

I also invite neo to write the authors of the paper you reference (any arXiv paper has their emails) and propose your experiment. No doubt they understand the field better than us. I look forward to their response. I'm quite serious.

From what I understand you believe "strongly correlated in time and frequency" is a property which

a) only occurs in entanglement
b) can be measured and computed using results available only at the receiver Bob
c) can be broken by experimental actions at distance where Alice is.

Does this summarize what you think? If so, please ask the professor if it would work. From what I've read at least normally FTL true comm isn't possible but I am not familiar with that experiment. I really doubt there is a loophole, but..... a former professor of mine just passed away. He experimentally showed something which wasn't supposed to happen: breaking charge-parity symmetry.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Was it Cronin just curious Nobel I believe. That would be an interesting topic. CP violations there are loopholes every now and than.

edit on 2/23/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Yes, three of you guys that sound like it's one person at times because you're making the same arguments that have nothing to do with anything I'm saying. This is simply a comprehension problem because you can't think past what you believe.

I have explained it in very simple terms and so far, every Professor I have explained this to can't find a flaw in what I'm saying just like nobody here has.

People have said information can go from A to B faster than light via entanglement. They all agree it's just not useful information.

That's the ballgame.

You don't have to send any useful information on any one of the three channels. The useful information is encoded on how each channel behaves relative to the other channels.

We're seeing this a lot in the growing field of Quantum Biology. Biological systems pick up differences of vibrations and frequencies in quantum systems.

Say you have 3 rocks in Bob's driveway. These three rocks are all aligned in a row. This is 111. If Bob wants Alice to meet him at the Subway on 1st street, he moves the 1st rock to a position higher than the other 2 rocks.

If he wants to meet at the Subway on 131Sst street, he moves the second rock to a higher position than the 1st and 3rd rocks.

If he wants to meet at the Subway on Lincoln street, he moves the 3rd rock to a higher position than the first two rocks.

So the information isn't encoded on any one of the rocks but how the three rocks are positioned relative to one another.

Again, information can go from Alice to Bob faster than light it's just not useful information just like one rock will not yield any useful information unless it's relative to other rocks.

You have 3 channels between Alice and Bob and each channel can transmit information from Alice to Bob faster than light.

It doesn't need to be useful information because you're not encoding the message on one channel just like you weren't encoding the message on one rock.

The problem you're having is that you want to debate encoding a message on one rock(spin up/spin down) but I have showed you time and time again that this isn't what I'm talking about.

You simply can't think past this point. I'm not here to try to get past a blind belief that you can't think past. I'm just laying out how FTL communication can easily be achieved.

This is what humans can do. We can turn information that's not useful and encode it with useful information. I'm looking at an empty box right now and I can rip the 4 top ends of the box and transmit useful information.

3 ends around the box = x

2 ends around the box = x

1 end around the box = x

Like I said, the fact that information can go from A to B faster than light means that humans can encode this information with a useful transmission.

The useful information isn't with the rocks, the box or spin up/spin down, the useful information is how we choose to encode the information that's not useful.

Like I said, the fact that we can send any information faster than light is the ballgame.
edit on 23-2-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mbkennel
I have explained it in very simple terms and so far, every Professor I have explained this to can't find a flaw in what I'm saying just like nobody here has.


Evidence for this? Call me skeptical...

This whole discussion is beyond the point of absurdity. Either everyone else is wrong but you (and this includes posters who have credentials in physics) or you are wrong. We did this dance in that acoustics thread where myself and many other posters pointed out the errors on your logic and failures in understanding but of course you berated and insulted everyone else because you couldn't possibly be wrong.


edit on 23-2-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Val Fitch. Had him in freshman physics, just one day a week for the problem sessions (supposedly). In 30 minutes he re-explained the rest of the week's lectures from the main professor much more clearly.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

We understand that the encoding is not on the individual bits themselves, but on functions of multiple observed low level observations (which is how all modern communicatino devices work, classically too).

Please write to the professor and repeat any reply verbatim here.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: neoholographic
Please write to the professor and repeat any reply verbatim here.
Neo, please post the whole correspondence, not just the reply.

I want to see how you explain your experimental setup details to the professor since I still don't understand the details of your experimental setup. I showed you a signal to noise measurement diagram from a quantum entanglement experiment, and you said that was from a different experiment and not how you'd measure signal to noise but then you never explained exactly how you'd measure it differently.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
@mbkennel: Make that four.

@neoholographic: how would you measure / calculate this "signal to noise ratio"?

I think we've all understood that the message is not to be encoded in spin states.
edit on 25-2-2015 by Deran because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join