Faster than light communication and breaking entanglement

Make that 5

a reply to: Justshrug

6 clocking in. No doubt this thread will die and OP will create a new one repeating the same claims ad nauseum.

a reply to: Deran

You said:

I think we've all understood that the message is not to be encoded in spin states.

First off, it took these guys 7 pages to grasp this. They kept debating encoding information on spin. So I have asked and answered the questions and now after 7 pages they finally admit that information will not be encoded on spin.

If information isn't encoded on spin but on multi information channels, then why is this prohibited?

You guys have not said why this would be prohibited. The reason why is you don't understand what you're talking about.

If it took 7 pages for you to realize that I wasn't talking about encoding information on spin but on multi information channels, then you don't understand and won't try to understand these things. So the question still stands.

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

a reply to: neoholographic

How do you determine signal to noise ratio?? Or to make it really simple how are you going to know if a photon is entangled if the photon already broke entanglement or the photon was never entangled. See when we look at a laser it's going to look totally random you can tell of entangled photons are even there in the first place.

It's like if I have a dozen eggs 2 eggs were laid by the same chicken. I give you 1 and me one and we also get 5 other eggs from different chickens. Now you get your six eggs sent to you of I don't give you any information how are you going to find the egg that matches mine??? 3 possible ways and oddly similar to how we detect photons I can have the eggs numbered and tell you by locations in our package. Counters can do this with our light beam. The other is send my eggs to you let you compare them. And finally we can check them in case of chickens we run a DNA test and I give you that to test each egg. This can be done by matching spin or frequency in our laser beam we know entangled photons will be opisit.

Notice in each of these scenarios you require me to give you information to find our matchIng eggs.

a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you have to read my post.

I said that Alice and Bob will have this information beforehand. They will know all three information channels are strongly correlated. This will be shown by things like arrival time, frequency and signal to noise.

You guys are still debating spin and that's why you're not making much sense.

Yes, if information being sent was dependent on spin or on whether the systems are entangled, then Bob would have to check with Alice because spin up/spin down will occur in a random way. So Alice can't encode information on spin because she can't control which spin she will measure. She knows after the fact that if she measured spin up, Bob will measure spin down.

So information is going between Bob and Alice faster than light but it's just random and not useful.

If you have multi information channels you can encode the information on how the channels behave relative to one another.

It's simple logic.

We can encode information on anything. I can say if 1 garbage bag is in front of the house this = x, if 2 it =c and if 3 it = x.

This is no different than 3 information channels that has information going from A to B faster than light. Again I ask:

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

You have yet to define explicitly and in detail exactly how you are determining correlations and signal to noise. Until you do so, it's impossible to have a rational discussion of your proposed experiment.

In the experiments I've reviewed the correlations and signal to noise are commonly determined using light speed information shared between the two observers of the faster than light entanglement. So they see the effects of entanglement faster than light, however they are typically unable to calculate correlations or signal to noise until the light speed information is shared between them.

We've already been down this road with the signal to noise measurement, and you said my diagram isn't how you'd measure it. Fine, then explain the details of how you determine the correlations and S/N ratios. If you can't explain how to do it without classical communication channels, and so far you've failed to explain that, then classical communication channels are needed to make the comparisons, (classical meaning "speed of light or less"). You saying "no, they're not, because I said so, and any engineer can figure out how to do it" is not a valid answer.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

More nonsense. You guys keep dodging the question and saying you need to explain more precisely and now it's define specifically about determining correlations. This is just silly nonsense.

The fact that you can't just answer the question as to why this would be prohibited shows you don't have an answer. You will just keep thinking if you say "explain precisely" or "define exactly" that has some meaning and you can avoid answering the question.

Yes, the correlations are determined by two observers at light speed and that would need to be the case if you were encoding information on spin.

If you're encoding information on multi channels why would the 2 observers need to determine correlations when this was established beforehand?????

Again, you're not going to answer my question or debate the issue because you keep debating encoding information on spin. Your post has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Why would light speed information need to be shared between Alice and Bob when they've established strong correlation in the channel beforehand?

originally posted by: neoholographic
If you're encoding information on multi channels why would the 2 observers need to determine correlations when this was established beforehand?????

Because they aren't static.

originally posted by: neoholographic

If you're encoding information on multi channels why would the 2 observers need to determine correlations when this was established beforehand?????

What "signal" would be measured on each channel? What exactly is being measured? What would constitute "noise" within this signal? These are the details that you're leaving out.

a reply to: nataylor

What???????

I have asked and answered these questions over and over and people are still debating encoding information on spin after they say they understand that the information isn't encoded on spin.

These questions are either about encoding information on spin or basic questions about entanglement.

You asked what signal would be measured on each channel and that's just basic entanglement. If you don't know that an entangled particle pair is strongly correlated in frequency and arrival and has a strong signal to noise, then what are we debating?

I've answered these questions. The problem is this is an 11 page thread then people enter on the tail end and ask questions that have already been answered then I have to explain these things again.

The only question that hasn't been answered is this:

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

All of this obfuscating about define this exactly or tell me this exactly is just hogwash.

If someone says they're trying to send information faster than light on spin up/spin down, I will say that's prohibited because you will always get a random distribution and Alice and Bob can't correlate their measurements faster than light.

See, it's that simple.

After 11 pages where 7 of those were spent on encoding information on spin when it had nothing to do with what I'm saying, it's time to simply answer the question. Why would this be prohibited?

a reply to: neoholographic

Simple answer is you can't you have no way of knowing if entanglement was broken without having something to compare it with.to separate signal from noise you need more information. You seem to think there is a magical way to detect entangled particles. yes we can detect changes on signal to noise ratio simple. But we have to determine what is the signal and what's not.This is the part your neglecting to understand at all.

In order to know how many of our photons or which ones are entangled we need ad it iona infirmation. Now as we asked over and over you don't either understand the question or don't understand entanglement. Either way doesn't matter what you describe gives us what's called encrypted data. Meaning to Alice or Bob they would see noise with no signal. To them it would look totally random until they are able to compare the two data streams.

There is only one question you need to answer how are you going to know which photons are entangled and which are not?? Or like we asked hiw do you determine the signal to noise ratio. Solve this you have a Nobel prize. If your clueless than your channel thing won't work.

a reply to: dragonridr

Wow!!

You said:

Simple answer is you can't you have no way of knowing if entanglement was broken without having something to compare it with.to separate signal from noise you need more information.

Pure gobbledy gook and it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. To separate signal from noise you need more information, WOW!!

I'm done. At first I thought you guys were just acting like you couldn't understand what I'm saying but now I see that's not an act.

originally posted by: neoholographic
If you don't know that an entangled particle pair is strongly correlated in frequency and arrival and has a strong signal to noise, then what are we debating?

Frequency of what? What's the signal? You've not answered any of this. Just saying the words "frequency," "signal," and "noise" doesn't explain anything.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I'm done. At first I thought you guys were just acting like you couldn't understand what I'm saying but now I see that's not an act.

How can we understand how you'd measure signal to noise when you never explained how you'd do it?

I posted a diagram showing how signal to noise was measured in an entanglement experiment using classical communication and you said "that's not how I'd do it" or something to that effect. OK fine, but that doesn't tell us how you would do it and you never explained that. Saying "you guys don't understand" is not an explanation of the details of your experiment by the way. Of course we don't understand, that's why we've been asking you to explain it, and that non-explanation is your answer, everyone here is a moron except you, according to you anyway.

originally posted by: nataylor

originally posted by: neoholographic
If you don't know that an entangled particle pair is strongly correlated in frequency and arrival and has a strong signal to noise, then what are we debating?

Frequency of what? What's the signal? You've not answered any of this. Just saying the words "frequency," "signal," and "noise" doesn't explain anything.

He needs to pick up a physics book so he can learn how we know if we have entangled particles. He thinks they just jump out and yell here I am. So his whole thing depends on magically detecting entangled particles even though by there very nature they don't want to let us know.

originally posted by: nataylor

originally posted by: neoholographic
If you don't know that an entangled particle pair is strongly correlated in frequency and arrival and has a strong signal to noise, then what are we debating?

Frequency of what? What's the signal? You've not answered any of this. Just saying the words "frequency," "signal," and "noise" doesn't explain anything.

Are you serious?

What kind of question is this? What explain frequency, signal and noise? You don't what these things mean???

If you don't know what these simple terms mean, why are you debating science instead of reading up on these things? If I can't talk about frequency or a signal in an information channel without having to define what these things are, then this isn't a scientific discussion but a class on terms you learn about in any sort of basic science class.

Again, these things have been explained. I've talked about these like noise and signals throughout this thread and explained my position. It makes no sense to turn this debate into defining simple scientific terms.

If you don't understand what signal, noise and frequency are then you need to go and study some basic science and then come back and read the thread. Like I said, I asked and answered all of these things and I'm not going to spend another 10 pages of people asking the same questions and defining basic science terms.

I hope you get paid well.

Can I borrow some?! LOL

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Deran

You said:

I think we've all understood that the message is not to be encoded in spin states.

First off, it took these guys 7 pages to grasp this. They kept debating encoding information on spin. So I have asked and answered the questions and now after 7 pages they finally admit that information will not be encoded on spin.

If information isn't encoded on spin but on multi information channels, then why is this prohibited?

You guys have not said why this would be prohibited. The reason why is you don't understand what you're talking about.

If it took 7 pages for you to realize that I wasn't talking about encoding information on spin but on multi information channels, then you don't understand and won't try to understand these things. So the question still stands.

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

Simply because there's no way to tell if a particle is entangled or not without having it's entangled partner available for measurements. You seem to think that it would be possible to compare a 'channel' to the other 'channels' to tell whether it's entanglement has been broken. It does not work like that. If you don't believe this, then pick up a book on quantum information and read it carefully.

originally posted by: neoholographic
If you don't understand what signal, noise and frequency are then you need to go and study some basic science and then come back and read the thread. Like I said, I asked and answered all of these things and I'm not going to spend another 10 pages of people asking the same questions and defining basic science terms.

I know very well what those things mean. It appears you don't. Just saying "frequency" doesn't tell you anything. If I say I'm sending you a signal at frequency of 100 Hz, that tells you nothing about what kind of signal it is or how you need to go about receiving it.

For instance, I could be sending an audio signal at 100Hz, or I could be oscillating an electromagnet at 100Hz. Maybe I'm flashing a laser at you, turning it on and off 100 times a second. Or maybe I'm sending a constant stream of photons that have a wavelength of 3,000,000 m. Maybe I'm releasing 100 carrier pigeons per second.

So what kind of signal would be sent? You've yet to tell us.

a reply to: nataylor

Hopefully he understands now think where running out of ways to explain it to him if he was a physics student simply ask him what was the detection method. But he doesn't know but assumes it can be done.