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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18998316]dragonridr
create a stable worm hole between 2 points would take the energy of a sun not very practical.
Energy is of essence, though it is available in the time domain, but yet unknown to MS or It is just ignored by MS




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I have another question that will probably be ignored.

Is the scientist using signal to noise ratio to keep track of the entangled particle?



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.


They seem to be?

If they are then the opening statement will not work since they are using signal to noise ratio to keep track of the entangled particle and sometimes they are not even able to get the entangled particle to it's destination.
edit on 13-2-2015 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Watch the video, PHD explains why quantum communication is not yet possible with our level of understanding and technology.




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

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.
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.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
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



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

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.
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.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

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


If so many people here is miss understanding it then there is a problem in how they communicate it.

I do think of entanglement as a wormhole phenomena where 2 parts in space time is connected/entangled without having to go thru other media.

Let say I have something I can transmit entangled particles thru and can measure the signal to noise ratio without removing the entanglement when they have arrived. Let say a 2 channels and call 00 as all the 2 entangle pair still entangled.

Then I do agree that you can use these 2 entangled pairs to send instant message (not going thru the media in between so there is no speed involved) since breaking the entanglement on one side will break it on the other side that would be noticed in the signal to noise ratio.

Then you can send 00, 01, 10, 11 and measure it by signal to noise ratio. But the channels that have been used as 1 (broken entanglement) would from my point of view not be able to be used for further communication.

Also if you move these entangled particles you must keep them uninterrupted by the environment around them so that they do not lose entanglement unintentionally.

In the arxiv.org... example they are using the entanglement for verification thru normal communication so this paper is not a really good example of instant communication thru entanglement.
edit on 13-2-2015 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

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.
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.


Einstein didn't say there was an ether that's a misunderstanding on your part. I think your talking about the cosmological constant. And as it turns out Einstein may have been right on that after all. It appears that there is though sadly he died thinking he made a mistake.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

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.


The invention of "ensuring the spin will be a specific way", will be the breakthrough that allows entanglement to be commercially viable. Presently there is NO way to get involved without having the undefined becoming defined, and picking what it wants to be. No one has demonstrated yet that they can accomplish that.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
As far as I understand entanglement in terms of instant communication, the problem is soon as Jack does anything to entangled particle A - in an attempt to communicate with Bob - particle A will act in a random way and particle B, located where Bob is, will mirror it. The problem is there's no way for Bob to distinguish between the normal random actions of the particle and those specific actions which result from Jack "doing something" to particle A. So Jack's manipulations are indistinguishable from the random actions otherwise seen. The only way Bob can know that a specific action was the result of Jack's manipulation is if Jack communicates the exact time of the manipulation. However, since hte result is going to be random, in terms of communicating a meaningful message, he might as well /ignore Jack's comms completely since they're no help.

Another problem is even if Jack could produce non-random exact output, it'd still fail, even if it was perfectly timed between Jack and Bob. I believe this is true because when Bob would attempt to read the particle he'd also in turn kill whatever message Jack was sending. There's no way to "listen" to a particle without also changing the other one. So the problem isn't just whether we can manipulate entangled particles in an exact fashion.
edit on 13-2-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Here is a theory about how you can use entanglement to comm faster. What if we have a device able to read entangled pairs by reading one close to our location AKA the source of transmission and getting the info on the location of the other part of the pair to transmit to.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   

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.


But isn't an orbiting electron the equivalent to faster than light,? Like when the orbit changes it does so instantly , and then gives off a photon, when the orbit changes. If two particles are entangled, shouldn't the change in orbit of one, disrupt the orbit of the other, and cause a photon emission. Or is it only a change in the spin that's entangled.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity


A photon is given off when an electron drops from a higher energy orbit to a lower one. It will only do this if there is a lower energy state available for it to occupy, so it does not disrupt any other orbit. If a photon strikes an atom, the electrons rise to higher energy states and the photon is absorbed.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


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.


Even if you could decipher the message, it would take forever to send anything meaningful. I can send an email from NYC to LA pretty much instantaneously now or I could just pick up the phone. So you can only send 5 letters? Which letters? Why letters? Why not whole words or even phrases? Why not make channel 1 represent a novel. Theoretically you could send "War and Peace" instantaneously. Pretty clever.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

It's just an example Sherlock, theoretically you could do it with 26 or 1001 channels.
edit on 14-2-2015 by IPFreely101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: IPFreely101
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

It's just an example Sherlock, theorethically you could do it with 26 or 1001 channels.


That's a lot. Though, current technology has no limit really. 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?




edit on 14-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
I have been reading 'How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture and the Quantum Revival' by David Kaiser, and the most intriguing part was related to Nick Herbert's work with Bell's Theorem and quantum entanglement. As far as I know, Bell and Herbert and the psychedelic physicists of the 1960s were the pioneers of Faster Than Light communication. Kaiser's book is a full history of their work and details how often it was difficult to get other scientists to look into the new discoveries.

excerpt from 'How the Hippies Saved Physics', Chapter 9: From FLASH to Quantum Encryption


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?


Perhaps the quantum internet of the future is almost nothing but high-tech telepathy and precognitive clairvoyance. If that is true, people may be able to detect certain visual narratives from its collective output in the future in their dreams now.

It's just a pity that such amazing technological breakthroughs could be made with such beautiful psychedelic cohesive thought, to be made into something that may or may not be quantum porn and advertising i.e. The Spreading of Darkness at the Speed of Light. Maybe only a certain type of advanced human will get to participate in that future. The apes might not make it... LOL



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian




Is there a reason an example couldn't have had a 1001 channels? I seriously don't get this stuff.


No not really, but the example is just that, an example showing the theory. FTL communications based on entanglement are not possible however.




Can you flowchart this for me?


No.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join