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.
Energy is of essence, though it is available in the time domain, but yet unknown to MS or It is just ignored by MS
originally posted by: [post=18998316]dragonridr
create a stable worm hole between 2 points would take the energy of a sun not very practical.
Using a technique called quantum illumination, the group established a secure channel of communication between two parties that relied on sending one of a pair of entangled photons through a noisy environment. Even though the initial entanglement didn’t survive the passage, it was enough to guarantee the communicated signal was secure. The demonstration opens up the possibility that quantum communication and metrology tasks can occur in environments previously thought too noisy for entanglement to be useful.
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Quite simply FTL communication is impossible because you would be sending messages back to a point in time before they were even sent.
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Quite simply FTL communication is impossible because you would be sending messages back to a point in time before they were even sent.
that's nice. believe me when i say i want an ansible. but so far no entanglement experiment has sent information at FTL speeds. the connection is FTL. but the information needed to decode it travels at normal speed. That is unless you know an experiment where this is not the case. I want an ansible. i hope we figure out a way to make one. but so far entanglement has been a dud on that front. That is unless you know something i don't.
originally posted by: neoholographic
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Quite simply FTL communication is impossible because you would be sending messages back to a point in time before they were even sent.
Again, this has nothing to do with entanglement.
There's no causality issues because information isn't traveling through space.
With quantum entanglement information sent from earth to mars will instantly be on mars via entanglement so it has nothing to do with causality. If you were sending information from earth to mars via some medium, then it would have to carry information faster than light thereby violating causality.
Again, this has nothing to do with sending information from point A to point B via quantum entanglement because information isn't traveling through any intervening space between these points.
i think the causality problem will eventually turn out to be the equivalent of Einstein's ether blunder. a conceit made by phycisists because they are appalled at a disorderly universe. i think the universe has no such concerns. we know quite a lot about 25 percent of the universe/matter /energy, etc. Why cannot the secret of an ansible or warp drive or what ever be hidden in the other 75 percent we don't know about? in dark matter or energy, exotic matter or energy or wormholes.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Quite simply FTL communication is impossible because you would be sending messages back to a point in time before they were even sent.
And right there is the key it causes a casualty problem. As I stated worm hole could indeed circumvent this since we could connect a worm hole to a certain point in time. But even in the example in the op I have to continually send entangled photons to 2 locations for this to occur. This has nothing to do with FTL communications it is a form of encryption.
No matter how you try to use entangled pairs you have to send information at light speed to interpret it. Meaning this isn't the way fir FTL communications. Only 2 ways if we found out we can send a signal through another dimension where space is alot closer or worm hole.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: LittleByLittle
You misunderstand what they're saying.
The point is, even though the initial entanglement didn't survive the passage to it's destination because entanglement was broken, they can still detect a signal to noise ratio but it will be weaker. It was previously thought when entanglement was broken there was no benefit because the signal was in an environment that was too noisy. They found out that they can still pick up the signal to noise ratio even when entanglement is broken. Here's the title of the paper they're discussing.
Entanglement's Benefit Survives an Entanglement-Breaking Channel
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i think the causality problem will eventually turn out to be the equivalent of Einstein's ether blunder. a conceit made by phycisists because they are appalled at a disorderly universe. i think the universe has no such concerns. we know quite a lot about 25 percent of the universe/matter /energy, etc. Why cannot the secret of an ansible or warp drive or what ever be hidden in the other 75 percent we don't know about? in dark matter or energy, exotic matter or energy or wormholes.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Quite simply FTL communication is impossible because you would be sending messages back to a point in time before they were even sent.
And right there is the key it causes a casualty problem. As I stated worm hole could indeed circumvent this since we could connect a worm hole to a certain point in time. But even in the example in the op I have to continually send entangled photons to 2 locations for this to occur. This has nothing to do with FTL communications it is a form of encryption.
No matter how you try to use entangled pairs you have to send information at light speed to interpret it. Meaning this isn't the way fir FTL communications. Only 2 ways if we found out we can send a signal through another dimension where space is alot closer or worm hole.
originally posted by: noeltrotsky
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.
My understanding is that when the observation takes place the experiment is doing so in a way to ensure the spin will be a specific way that they want. This causes the entangled particle to have the opposite spin. Because you 'forced' the spin on one you have 'sent information' to the entangled partner...namely the opposite spin.
originally posted by: game over man
originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel
If your talking about fast computing well we are already doing it with quantum computers.
If your talking about FTL communication to cover great distances then we have a problem.
Lets say you do for arguments sake manage to entangle particles , and with a great break through you manage to create a communication code with the different spins allowing for ftl communication.
If you want ftl communication for just earth and solar system you might save a few minutes here and there but communication we already have is very fast as it is.
What do you think this would achieve? if you want to send communications great distances. ie light years away .. you have to fly 1 of the particles out their first. by the time that particle gets to its destination so many years have passed on earth that your revolutionary form of communication would be outdated and probably in a museum some where on Earth.
Catch 22
Q
Exactly...Unless you send the particle through a wormhole. Cool thread OP.
Bob and Alice have 5 entangled pairs of photons. Five goes to Alice and 5 goes to Bob. Their computers have 5 information channels. Say Alice wanted to send Bob an A. In the first information channel she breaks entanglement. When Bob's computer checks his information channels. His first channel has a weaker signal to noise ratio than the other 4 channels and he knows Alice is sending him an A.
originally posted by: IPFreely101
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
It's just an example Sherlock, theorethically you could do it with 26 or 1001 channels.
From Nick Herbert’s earliest encounters with Bell’s theorem and entanglement, something kept nagging at him. If the quantum world really were subject to such “spooky actions at a distance,” he wondered , could we harness that fundamental feature and put it to work? In the closing paragraphs of his succinct rederivation of Bell’s theorem, published in 1975, he mused about one possible application: “superluminal telegraphy,” using entangled quantum particles to send messages from point A to point B faster than light could travel between them. On the face of it, Herbert acknowledged , such faster-than-light signaling appeared inconsistent with Einstein’s relativity. “But ,” he concluded, “the technological advantages of such a rapid communication device seem to make investigations” of such possibilities “of more than philosophical interest.”
What would it mean to send signals faster than light? Beyond the apparent violation of Einstein’s relativity— that would be bad enough— all manner of strange paradoxes would be unleashed. Seen from the right vantage point, superluminal signals would travel backward in time: a message would be received before it was sent. No wonder the idea makes the hairs on the backs of physicists’ necks stand on end. As one acclaimed textbook author put it recently, physicists are particularly “squeamish about superluminal influences.” Such chicanery dredges up all kinds of causal loopholes. You could send a retroactive telegram instructing your grandmother not to marry your grandfather. Or, on a brighter note, you could warn your forebears to divest their stock-market holdings a day before the great crashes of 1929, 2001, or 2008 —the ultimate in insider trading. The possibilities would be truly Orwellian: sending messages faster than light could allow us to rewrite history to suit our present-day whims, or, as one wit put it, to “change yesterday today for a better tomorrow.” Perhaps , some argued, such signaling was already occurring. After all, what were mental telepathy and precognitive clairvoyance but messages received outside the usual channels?
Is there a reason an example couldn't have had a 1001 channels? I seriously don't get this stuff.
Can you flowchart this for me?