Faster than light communication and breaking entanglement

a reply to: nataylor

Yes, I have explained this and this is the problem when people come onto the end of a thread without reading the thread. The same questions you're asking have been asked and answered. Sadly, you and others are just obfuscating because you can't explain why this would be prohibited.

What would prevent Alice or Bob from detecting a signal on one channel that different relative to the other two channels?

You guys are just asking the same nonsense over and over again because you can't tell me why this would be prohibited. So you say, define this exactly or tell me this precisely. It's just gobbledy gook because you can't answer the question as to why this would be prohibited.

Alice isn't comparing her measurement with Bob to check for correlations. They already know the particle pairs are correlated beforehand.

One of the guys on this thread posted a image from an article that supports what I'm saying.

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.

physics.aps.org...

This is an article about Quantum illumination but it illustrates my point.

Now it just comes down to the basics when it comes to what we know about entanglement and what I have listed over and over again in published papers and experiments.

When you have entangled photons, and you send one to Bob and Alice retains the other one, YOU HAVE AN ENTANGLED SIGNAL THAT WILL BE STRONGLY CORRELATED IN ARRIVAL TIME AND FREQUENCY.

You will also have stronger signal to noise.

Bob and Alice check to make sure ALL THREE CHANNELS ARE STRONGLY CORRELATED IN ARRIVAL TIME AND FREQUENCY.

Bob and Alice are not sending any information faster than light on one channel or on spin. This is what you guys keep debating like a broken record.

Alice and Bob now have a 3 channel system where each channel contains an entangled signal that's strongly correlated in arrival time, frequency and signal to noise.

Each of these channels can send information faster than light. The information just isn't useful because it's random. We easily encode useful information on information that's not useful as I have illustrated numerous times.

Now, you have 3 channels each with a strong correlation of the entangled signal. This is 111.

When you break entanglement on one channel, you no longer have a strongly correlated signal in arrival time, frequency and signal to noise. The channel where Bob or Alice choose to break entanglement will be different relative to the other channels where entanglement isn't broken and there's still a strongly correlated signal.

So Alice has the option of breaking entanglement on any one of the 3 channels and changing the signal from 111 in 3 channels to 011, 101 or 110. She's sending Bob information faster than light.

You guys can't say why this would be prohibited. If Alice measures a photon on one channel, Bob will no longer have a strongly correlated system in that channel just more random noise. It then boils down to that Sesame Street game, which one of these things is not like the other. Which signal is no longer strongly correlated like the other two signals in the multi information channel set up.

There's no reason why this would be prohibited and that's why you guys keep obfuscating.

In fact, you will eventually be able to send information backwards in time. As Einstein tells us, the past, present and future are persistent illusions. All of time and space exist simultaneously. Einstein said:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Very profound stuff.

Happening and becoming are just an illusion of our 3 dimensional perception but "reality" is really a 4 dimensional whole where the difference between past, present and future are just an illusion.

So things like decoherence and the speed of light lock us into a prison of our universe or the illusion of our 3 dimensional perception of now. When you can transmit information from A to B faster than light then information is no longer trapped in the prison of our perception.

Say if this is set up in 2020, a person from 2025 would be able to send information to 2020. So a person in 2025 could send information to themselves in 2020. If you send the lottery numbers, yourself from 2020 will be rich but not you unless there's a quantum internet with Pay Pal, then yourself from 2020 could send you 2 million of the 10 million dollar jackpot. I could see a day when people Skype with themselves because this in no way violates causality because information isn't traveling through intervening space between points A and B.

a reply to: neoholographic

Read your article closely and you'll figure it out. This is encryption using entanglement. Not about transferring use full information faster than light. This is just a method for secure communications between two points. Wow you really don't get it do you??

a reply to: dragonridr

Sadly, you don't know what you're talking.

First, they say this can be used to send information.

Quantum entanglement is a special type of correlation between two objects: if two particles—say, two photons—are in an entangled state, then measuring one determines the state of the other even if they are far apart. More than a quirky feature of quantum mechanics, entanglement is the basis for many new applications. These include technologies for sending secret signals, transmitting densely coded information, and replicating a particle a long distance away (quantum teleportation.) But in these and other applications, the fact that entanglement is fragile and easily broken by environmental noise can be the limiting factor.

They're talking about how even when you break entanglement a signal can still be sent.

EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.

What's the title of their paper?

Entanglement's Benefit Survives an Entanglement-Breaking Channel

arxiv.org...

So yes, they were talking about transmitting information that's not FTL securely on one channel even when entanglement is broken.

I'm not trying to encode information faster than light on one channel. I'm doing it on a multi channel network. It's exactly what I'm talking about.

Again you're obfuscating.

Tell us why this would be prohibited on a multi channel network.

originally posted by: neoholographic
So yes, they were talking about transmitting information that's not FTL securely on one channel even when entanglement is broken.

I'm not trying to encode information faster than light on one channel. I'm doing it on a multi channel network. It's exactly what I'm talking about.

Again you're obfuscating.

Tell us why this would be prohibited on a multi channel network.

That's like saying "I can't break the speed of sound in one Cessna, but I can do it with three Cessnas". You can carry three times as much cargo or passengers with three Cessnas, but none of them are any faster than one Cessna.

Likewise you can't say "I'm not trying to encode information faster than light on one channel. I'm doing it on a multi channel network" and expect it to make any more sense than claiming three Cessnas can break the speed of sound where one cannot.

Also that paper uses the same kind of signal-to-noise measurement setup as I cited earlier, that you said didn't apply to your experiment. Both setups of course require additional information to be communicated at the speed of light to supplement the faster than light entanglement data.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think what neoholographic is talking about is FTL code breaking applications where a standing wave pattern has already been established.

www.askamathematician.com...

The experiment essentially requires a “standing wave” in the test chamber, with waves at many frequencies. These light waves interact in such a way that they create peaks, like when you pluck two slightly-out-of-tune guitar strings and you hear a pulsing sound.

Its essentially the “scissor paradox” When you close a pair of scissors the point where the blades intersect is moving much faster than either blade.

There is more information to be found searching with key words "phase velocity" and dispersion.

en.wikipedia.org...

So for applications like holographic database sorts and code breaking that use interference patterns there is a FTL component.

BTW Rush just announced a reissue of their landmark 1976 studio album 2112.
So "Fly by night" gets a new cover.
www.axs.com...

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think what neoholographic is talking about is FTL code breaking applications where a standing wave pattern has already been established.

That's completely unrelated to the entanglement neo is talking about.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Quantum behavior has been explained using standing waves since the French physicist Louis de Broglie presented the earliest version of pilot-wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference in Brussels.

www.quantamagazine.org...

If space and time behave like a superfluid, or a fluid that experiences no dissipation at all, then path memory could conceivably give rise to the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement — what Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a distance.” When two particles become entangled, a measurement of the state of one instantly affects that of the other. The entanglement holds even if the two particles are light-years apart.

I'm drawing on Von Neumann studies from the cryptography angle.

a reply to: Cauliflower
I still fail to see how this supports Neo's multi-channel FTL communication idea.
The experiment he refers to clearly uses light speed communication to handle the cryptography and does not permit faster than light communication of useful information as neo claims.

There is also nothing in either article you linked that says useful information can be transmitted faster than light.

We already established early in the thread that entanglement is a useful technology for cryptography, but neo is trying to use it for faster than light communication, not cryptography.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's like saying "I can't break the speed of sound in one Cessna, but I can do it with three Cessnas". You can carry three times as much cargo or passengers with three Cessnas, but none of them are any faster than one Cessna.

What?????

Your analogy makes ZERO sense and it shows you don't understand what I'm saying.

Yes, you could break the speed of sound because in this case all three Cessna's would be able to break the speed of sound. Entanglement is already sending information faster than light.

On each channel, information can go from A to B faster than light. It's just not useful information BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ENCODING INFORMATION ON ONE CHANNEL.

It's just like my earlier example with the rocks.

If you have 3 rocks lined up across in a row and the rocks are all on the same level. You then have 111. You say if the first rock is lifted up higher than the next two rocks it's 011.

If the middle rock is higher it's 101.

If the last rock is higher it's 110.

We can encode information on just about anything. The information isn't encoded on any 1 rock but on how the 3 rocks behave relative to each other.

WHY CAN'T YOU DO THE SAME WITH MULTI INFORMATION CHANNELS??

You guys never answer the question it's just more ducking and dodging.

You already have information going from A to B faster than light. You're not encoding information on any one channel just like you're not encoding information in any one rock. The fact that entanglement allows for information to go from A to B means we can encode this information with useful data as long as we're not trying to encode the data on spin or just one of the information channels.

a reply to: neoholographic

The problem is you're getting ahead of yourself. You need to show how a a break in entanglement can be detected on one of the channels.

a reply to: nataylor

Again, this has already been shown in the 1st post. This is why it's hard coming in on the end of a thread without reading the entire thread because you're just debating points that were already asked and answered.

This is nothing knew. Scientist have known that breaking entanglement increases noise in the channel. They just didn't know that even when the entanglement was broken, you can still detect the signal even in the presence of more noise. Hence the title of one of the published papers I have listed.

Entanglement's Benefit Survives an Entanglement-Breaking Channel

arxiv.org...

WHAT'S ENTANGLEMENTS BENEFIT?

The fact that an entangled signal is strongly correlated where a channel where entanglement was broken isn't strongly correlated and is drowned out by increased noise. The main point of the paper is even with increased noise you can still detect a much weaker signal than you would have if entanglement wasn't broken.

So again, it will just come down to which one of these things aren't the same. If Alice breaks entanglement in 1 of the 3 channels there will be increased noise relative to the other two channels where entanglement wasn't broken and the entangled signal is strong.

a reply to: neoholographic

I've read the whole thread. You haven't answered any of the outstanding issues.

That paper you're referencing doesn't apply, since it requires photons to be sent from point A to point B and then back to point A to be compared. That necessarily means it's limted by the speed of light. Useful for when you want to detect previously entangled photons amongst noise, but useless at transferring information or establishing a communication channel.

a reply to: nataylor

Of course it does. The only reason you have to send a signal back to point back to point A is because they were detecting a far off object. There's no need to send a signal back to point A to break entanglement and increase noise in the channel. It tells you as plain as day what they're doing.

Quantum illumination [2], which was first proposed by Seth Lloyd, is a method to enhance the probability of detecting a far away object. The problem with just shining light on a far away object and looking for any reflected photons is that little light will be reflected and any that does may be hard to see against a thermal background of light. Lloyd showed that using an entangled photon state to illuminate the object could significantly enhance the observer’s ability to distinguish the reflected light from the background. What is surprising is that this enhancement survives even when the noisy background completely destroys the entanglement in transit.

So yes, if you're trying to detect a distant object, you have to sent photon B back to A and the entangled signal will enhance the ability to distinguish the reflected light from the background.

This has been misunderstood several times already in this thread and if you would have read the entire thread than you would have already seen this.

The goal isn't to detect a distant object but to communicate between Alice and Bob FTL by breaking entanglement in one of the three channels.

I wish you guys would actually debate what I'm saying. This same argument has been made 2 or 3 times in this thread because people didn't read the article first.

a reply to: neoholographic

How does Bob know when entanglement has been broken? He can't know, because he doesn't have access to Alice's retained photons. Only Alice knows, because Alice compares her retained photon with the photon returned by Bob. The photon Alice retains and the photon Bob returns will correlated in frequency, even if entanglement is broken, so a stream of them will have a high signal to noise ratio. But Bob has nothing to compare to the photon he receives. So he has no way of knowing that any particular photon he receives is entangled.

a reply to: nataylor

You're rehashing the same arguments that have been made and already answered. This is why I say it's important to read the entire thread if you're coming in this late in a debate and you don't fully understand the issue. I have already had to backtrack several times with you and I want to advance the debate instead of answering the same questions that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Of course he knows, they both know beforehand that the three channel have an entangled signal that's strongly correlated. Bob doesn't need to check with Alice to know there's increased noise in the channel when entanglement is broken.

Alice isn't sending Bob any useful information in the channel where entanglement was broken, it's just increased random noise vs. an entangled signal that's strongly correlated and has less noise.

The only reason Bob would need to communicate with Alice is if she's trying to encode useful information on one of the channels.

The information by itself is not useful and random but you're not encoding any information on any one of the 3 channels. So there's no need for Alice and Bob to communicate unless they were trying to send useful information on 1 of the 3 channels but they're not.

a reply to: neoholographic

You don't seem to understand. Bob has no access to the "signal." The signal the paper is talking about is only available to Alice, because she retains one of the original entangled photons. All Bob has access to is a stream of photons. He has no idea if any particular photon is an entangled one that Alice sent or if it's a photon from another source. He has nothing to compare to the photons he receives.

a reply to: nataylor

Nope, both the retained signal and sent signal are strongly correlated.

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 MUCH STRONGER INITIAL CORRELATION!

The entangles signal is strongly correlated between Bob and Alice. This is established while you're setting up the network.

The paper is saying that the INITIAL SIGNAL between Bob and Alice's entangled photon pair was STRONGLY CORRELATED. They established this beforehand.

What they're saying is, when Bob sends his photon back to Alice and entanglement is broken the signal is still there BUT IT'S NOT AS STRONG AS THE INITIAL SIGNAL.

The only reason that Bob is sending his signal back to Alice is because he's sending useful information about a distant object on one channel.

In my set up, tell me, which one of the 3 channels would be sending useful information? The answer, NONE!!!

a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, the sent signal and retained signal are strongly correlated. But Bob doesn't have access to the retained signal, so he can't know if the signal he's receiving is correlated or not. Measuring correlation necessarily requires comparing two things.

a reply to: nataylor

Sure he can because he knows that they're strongly correlated when they're setting up the network.

You're making the same argument that the others have made that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

To send information, Bob and Alice don't have to correlate anything after the strongly correlated signal has been established beforehand.

Bob and Alice are not sending any useful information about correlation on any 1 of the 3 channels. Again, they're not encoding information on spin up/spin down, so they don't need to communicate with each other.

The 3 channels don't know Bob is receiving useful information from Alice. Each channel is sending random useless information. Bob knows the information when he looks at the 3 channels relative to each other.

Again I ask:

In my set up, tell me, which one of the 3 channels would be sending useful information? The answer, NONE!!!

On Bob's end, he's seeing 3 channels that are strongly correlated. This has been established by Bob and Alice when they're setting up the FTL network. Now Alice wants to sent Bob 011 and breaks entanglement on her end. What will Bob see?

A random increase of noise in the first channel compared to the other two channels where entanglement wasn't broken and you still have a strong signal.

You're not sending any useful information on any one of the 3 channels. It's only useful information to Bob as he's looking at all 3 channels.

a reply to: neoholographic

Simple Question HOW Do YOU KNOW If A Signal Is Correlated. Also with this communication device your keeping a constant signal stream since it relies on breaking that to send a signal meaning we have travel time to a location and back again before you can detect the break. This is slower than standard communication by 2 times.However great if you want to make sure no one is listening that's why eve is there she sees nothing when she compares the two beams.