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: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, this has nothing to do with anything I've said.

I'm starting to think I'm debating one person with several accounts because when one account gets stumped here comes one of the other accounts asking the same questions that either have nothing to do with what I'm saying or have been asked and answered. So until I see one of these accounts ask something new or something that actually pertains to what I said, I'll just say.

Asked and answered.




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

I'm starting to think I'm debating one person with several accounts because when one account gets stumped here comes one of the other accounts asking the same questions that either have nothing to do with what I'm saying or have been asked and answered. So until I see one of these accounts ask something new or something that actually pertains to what I said, I'll just say.


Or, crazy thought I know, you're the one who's misunderstanding the issue here.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Explain what issue I'm misunderstanding.

Explain which channel is sending useful information faster than light.

Explain why this would be prohibited.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

How many more laps do we have to do on this issue?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I can keep going because it's obvious that you or anyone else can't refute what I'm saying. If I heard an answer that just said:

This would be prohibited because of x and it didn't have to do with spin or Alice and Bob communicating faster than light in order to see if there's correlation, then I'm fine with moving on.

For instance, if someone said you can send useful information faster than light on spin, a person would say that's prohibited because Alice or Bob can't control which measurement will occur so they will each just get random, useless information.

Just explain why this would be prohibited when Alice or Bob are not sending useful information on any 1 of the 3 channels.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: GetHyped

I can keep going because it's obvious that you or anyone else can't refute what I'm saying. If I heard an answer that just said:

This would be prohibited because of x and it didn't have to do with spin or Alice and Bob communicating faster than light in order to see if there's correlation, then I'm fine with moving on.

For instance, if someone said you can send useful information faster than light on spin, a person would say that's prohibited because Alice or Bob can't control which measurement will occur so they will each just get random, useless information.

Just explain why this would be prohibited when Alice or Bob are not sending useful information on any 1 of the 3 channels.


We did in several different ways you don't understand how to correlate a laser and how to know when it is. You think there like dials on a radio and you set them. Corelation can only be determined by comparison to something hence the name.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You can't explain how you tell if one signal is correlated to another signal. For instance, here's one signal that starts highly correlated to another signal, but the correlation breaks part way through the series:

688426862244468

I retain the other signal that is highly correlated to the start of the above signal. Tell me where in the series the correlation breaks.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Again, this has nothing to do with anything I'm saying. You guys keep asking the same question in 100 different ways and it's nonsense.

Yes, you can establish strong correlation between an entangled signal and this isn't anything new. You can tell through things like arrival time, frequency and signal to noise.

If you couldn't do this there would be no difference between channels where entanglement breaking has occurred and where you have an entangled signal.

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.

How did the Researchers know the signal was highly correlated? This is because the entangled signal was strongly correlated in arrival time, frequency and noise.

What happens to that strongly correlated signal when entanglement is broken?

Entanglement's Benefit Survives an Entanglement-Breaking Channel

The signal isn't strongly correlated in things like arrival time, frequency and noise. There's no need for Alice and Bob to communicate because they're not sending any useful information faster than light.

This isn't a debate about entanglement. These things have been done over and over again in experiment after experiment so these questions have nothing to do with anything I'm saying and this is why they're so open ended.

All you have to do is explain why your question will prohibit this set up from occurring when you're not sending useful information faster than light on any of the 3 channels.

Please stop with the open ended questions that have nothing to do with what I'm saying or if you think it has anything to do with what I'm saying explain how it will prohibit this from occurring.

You keep asking these questions but you won't say how anything you're saying will prohibit this set up from occurring.
edit on 1-3-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You just don't seem to understand that correlation requires comparison. The researchers in the paper were able to tell the signals were correlated because they compared the signals.

Before you can talk about using multiple channels to transfer information, you must explain how correlation will be determined.

In my example above, I duplicated the conditions you set up. I gave you a signal that starts highly correlated to another signal I retain. If you can't tell me where correlation breaks in the series, then neither can Bob. If Bob can't tell when correlation breaks, then your system can't work. That's why your idea won't work.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Again, this has NOTHING to do with what I'm saying. This is why I keep asking you to explain how this will prohibit my set up.

Where did I say that Alice was sending Bob useful information on one channel?

Why would Bob need to know where the correlation breaks when it WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED BEFOREHAND, that Bob and Alice have strongly correlated signals in channels 1 ,2 and 3?

Again, you're debating spin and it makes zero sense as it pertains to what I'm saying.

Who said correlation didn't require comparison?

Yes they compared signals and so will Alice and Bob in my set up.

The information isn't encoded on the correlation between Alice and Bob, it's encoded on how multi channels behave relative to each other. I've described this and you and the others will not address what I'm saying but you keep making the same argument that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I said:


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.


I don't have to explain how correlation will be determined. That has nothing to do with this debate. We know that an entangled signal will STRONGLY CORRELATED. I'm not sending any useful information on any observable properties.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated.

Again, you're making the same argument others here have made and it makes zero sense as it pertains to what I'm saying.

If Alice or Bob were sending useful information on a property like spin, then yes, Alice and Bob would have to compare to make sure the entangled particles are correlated.

Bob and Alice aren't sending information on an observable property like spin, so why would they need to compare when there's no useful information encoded on spin up/spin down? There's no useful information being encoded on any of the three channels. The useful information comes from the knowledge of Bob and Alice and how the multi channel system behaves relative to each other.

Why would Bob need to tell you where the correlation breaks on any 1 of the 3 channels when useful information isn't being decoded from any 1 of the 3 channels?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Leaving out a bunch of other issues, how does Bob determine when entanglement breaks on one of the channels?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You really can't be thus dense your messing with us right?? How are they going to tell when a signal is no longer correlated. OK making this third grade simple as you state the signals are checked they correlate them and realized 79 percent of particles are entangled. They do thus through data comparison. So we have 79 percent signal 21 percent random noise. This would be photons that were not entangled or broke entanglement before comparison.

Now we have 3 channels we correlated them in your world without sending data like we did in the first place how do we know the signal to noise ratio cuanges??



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: nataylor

Again, this has NOTHING to do with what I'm saying. This is why I keep asking you to explain how this will prohibit my set up....
It has nothing to do with what you're saying because natataylor understands how entanglement works and you don't.


The useful information comes from the knowledge of Bob and Alice and how the multi channel system behaves relative to each other.
You don't know how the multi-channel system is behaving unless you transmit comparison data at the speed of light. That's what the authors of the paper you reference are doing, and that's why your idea isn't faster than light communication.

The only way you're going to prove us all wrong is to do your experiment, publish your paper, get it replicated by reputable scientists, and then receive your Nobel prize, but it's pretty apparent you understand less about entanglement experiments than most of the people replying to you, so I don't see that happening.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

ZERO sense.

Tell me, what data would I be sending? When did I say I would be sending any useful data on any of the 3 channels?

When Alice breaks entanglement on 1 of the 3 channels, noise in that channel will increase. Let's look at the article again.

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.

This has to do with Bob trying to decode a signal Bob encoded on the photon that was sent to him.

Schematic showing the secure communication protocol, via photons, between Alice and Bob. Alice uses a spontaneous parametric down-converter (SPDC) to prepare two entangled photons, one of which she sends to Bob, the other of which she keeps. Bob encodes a signal on the photon he receives and sends it back, but he breaks the initial entanglement with a noise amplifier.

If Bob isn't sending any encoded signal back to Alice, then why would Bob need to decode anything in order for information to go from Alice to Bob faster than the speed of light? Here's the kicker.


Instead of using quantum illumination to enhance a measurement, Zhang et al. [1] apply the method to making a secure transmission channel, based on an idea from group leader Jeffrey Shapiro [3]. Suppose Bob controls if the object is present, while Alice has to use her entangled photons to detect it. Upon receiving one photon, Bob encodes a “1” if the object is present and a “0” if it is not. Using the quantum illumination technique, Alice’s measurement of whether Bob sent a “0” or “1” has a high signal to noise. She can therefore determine the presence or absence of the object with confidence, even with low levels of light.


Again, this whole set up is about Quantum illumination and detecting a distant object. Let's compare this method to what I'm saying.

In order for Alice to know whether an object is present or not, Bob has to encode a 1 or a 0 and send his photon back to Alice. She then has decode this information with the retained signal.

With my set up, if Bob wants to inform Alice the object is present, IT WILL NOT BE ENCODED ON A PHOTON. It will be 011 on the multi information channel. If Bob wants to inform Alice that the photon isn't present, IT WILL NOT BE ENCODED ON THE PHOTON. It will be 101 on the multi information channels.

BOB ISN'T SENDING ALICE ANY USEFUL INFORMATION ON ANY ONE OF THE CHANNELS!

Again, this is self explanatory if you have a rudimentary understanding of quantum entanglement.

In my set up, Alice and Bob already know that they have entangled photon pairs that are strongly correlated in arrival time and frequency. THERE'S NO NEED FOR BOB TO ENCODE PHOTONS WITH USEFUL INFORMATION AND SEND THE PHOTON BACK TO ALICE.

The reason this occurs in this set up is because Bob is sending Alice useful information on one channel. So of course, the only way that Alice can decode the signal is to recombine the photons Bob sent with the ones that she retained.

In my set up, Bob isn't encoding a 1 or an 0 to send back to Alice. They EACH HAVE 3 channels with entangled signals they know are strongly correlated in arrival time and frequency.

When Alice wants to inform Bob that the object is present, which is 011, she breaks entanglement in the first channel and noise will increase in the first channel while you still have a strongly correlated entangled signal in the other 2 channels.

WHY DOES ALICE AND BOB NEED TO CORRELATE ANY DATA WHEN THEY'RE NOT SENDING ANY USEFUL INFORMATION ON ANY ONE OF THE 3 CHANNELS????????



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You don't seem to understand that Bob can't tell if noise increases on one of the channels unless he is comparing the signal he receives to the signal Alice retains.

I'll go back to my example. Here are three signals Bob receives, one on each channel:

688426862244468
000101101100011
AGYTLMWUUHIPAKO

Bob knows that when the signals were sent, they were well correlated with signals Alice retained. How does he tell which of the channels has a signal that is no longer correlated with the corresponding signal Alice retains, meaning that entanglement was broken at that point in the signal? How does he determine where the signal sent from Alice stops and noise begins, let alone which of the three channels that is on?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

You said:

You don't seem to understand that Bob can't tell if noise increases on one of the channels unless he is comparing the signal he receives to the signal Alice retains.

You don't seem to understand that the only reason Bob would need to compare his signal to Alice's if he's trying to decode useful information sent by Alice. You said:

Bob knows that when the signals were sent, they were well correlated with signals Alice retained. How does he tell which of the channels has a signal that is no longer correlated with the corresponding signal Alice retains, meaning that entanglement was broken at that point in the signal?

Easy, there will be a difference in things like arrival time, frequency and noise of one channel compared to the other two channels.

You have Alice and Bob on a multi channel network. They know BEFOREHAND when the 3 channels are strongly correlated in arrival time, frequency and when Alice breaks entanglement on 1 of the 3 channels because there will be a difference of arrival time, frequency and noise relative to the other 2 channels that are still strongly correlated.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So your system requires the three channels to be entangled to each other (plus at least one more channel Alice retains in order to be able to break entanglement)?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: nataylor
a reply to: neoholographic

So your system requires the three channels to be entangled to each other (plus at least one more channel Alice retains in order to be able to break entanglement)?


He's using our laser beam like a circuit but doesn't understand destructive interference and how it works. Even when entanglement is broken on any channels there is no way to instantly tell. He thinks it's like they can monitor for a change on a channel they can't. Every channel will look random and in fact are random even the entangled photons are Random they just have another one like them.

Each beam will be random information and without any comparison we can't tell if it's entangled or not.Meaning we have no way of detecting signal to noise. I explained earlier the 3 methods we know of to detect entanglement his theory fits none of thEse.

So either he has a new way to do this not discovered by science or he's clueless and thinks he's dealing with electricity.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Bravo!

You get it!

Entanglement can be broken by a noise amplifier. There's also other ways this could be achieved. For instance:

Physicists have learned to entangle photons and have found application for them, including optical fiber communication channels which are impossible to tap. When trying to intercept the transmission of data over such a channel, quantum entanglement of photons is inevitably destroyed and the legitimate recipient of the message immediately detects interference.

Again, you have my multi channel set up and if you wanted to change 1 channel from 0 to1, You just try to intercept the transmission and the person that was the recipient of the message immediately detects interference.

So in my set up, the transmission of data isn't important. What's important is that entanglement is destroyed and the recipient on the other end of the channel WILL IMMEDIATELY detect interference. So you have 3 channels and the channel where you destroy entanglement IMMEDIATELY detects interference which will be different than the other two channels.

The beauty of this is, it's just random interference that contains no information. The information is known to receiver by how the one channel changes relative to the other 2 channels.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The problem is that if all three channels are entangled together, then breaking entanglement on one channel breaks it on all channels simultaneously.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join