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.
originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: neoholographic
I'll just leave this here.
astroengineer.wordpress.com...
An interesting story.
originally posted by: okamitengu
I actually think bob would send alice the D... especially if she is in a bikini...
originally posted by: neoholographic
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.
originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Jonjonj
oh and this one as well
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Quantum Gravitational Antennas for instantaneous communications across the Universe
originally posted by: BogieSmiles
If the spin is established for both particles at the moment of entanglement, what is the mystery? When one observes the spin of one of the particles, they know the spin of the other. The spin of the other doesn't change; it remains as it was when it was entangled. We simply know now what it is. What am I missing? Isn't it like flipping a coin? If it comes up heads, we instantly know it isn't tails?
originally posted by: neoholographic
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: charlyv
There is sufficient theory that suggests that the particles are "undefined" until one or the other is observed. At that point one is fixed at one spin (random) , and the other one instantly adopts the opposite spin.
originally posted by: BogieSmiles
If the spin is established for both particles at the moment of entanglement, what is the mystery? When one observes the spin of one of the particles, they know the spin of the other. The spin of the other doesn't change; it remains as it was when it was entangled. We simply know now what it is. What am I missing? Isn't it like flipping a coin? If it comes up heads, we instantly know it isn't tails?
originally posted by: charlyv
originally posted by: BogieSmiles
If the spin is established for both particles at the moment of entanglement, what is the mystery? When one observes the spin of one of the particles, they know the spin of the other. The spin of the other doesn't change; it remains as it was when it was entangled. We simply know now what it is. What am I missing? Isn't it like flipping a coin? If it comes up heads, we instantly know it isn't tails?
There is sufficient theory that suggests that the particles are "undefined" until one or the other is observed. At that point one is fixed at one spin (random) , and the other one instantly adopts the opposite spin.
Entanglement is essential to many quantum information applications, but it is easily destroyed by quantum decoherence arising from interaction with the environment. We report the first experimental demonstration of an entanglement-based protocol that is resilient to loss and noise which destroy entanglement. Specifically, despite channel noise 8.3 dB beyond the threshold for entanglement breaking, eavesdropping-immune communication is achieved between Alice and Bob when an entangled source is used, but no such immunity is obtainable when their source is classical. The results prove that entanglement can be utilized beneficially in lossy and noisy situations, i.e., in practical scenarios.