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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

First off, you need to read what I actually said. You're post doesn't have anything to do with any of the information I posted in this thread.

I agree with Dr. Kaku. At the end of the video he says:

USEFUL INFORMATION CAN'T TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT.

I agree with that 110%

I have been saying over and over again, that information isn't traveling faster than light between point A and point B.

Some of you guys keep making the same argument that has nothing to do with anything that I'm saying. The simple question is this:

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

I have asked this over and over again and it hasn't been answered. You guys keep making the same arguments that have nothing to do with anything that I have said.


I see your not getting it several people explained why your just not getting it . Let's make this really simple how are you going to separate your entangled particles. You have to create them in the same place. Than we ship one of them somewhere but how?? Well a photon we would send as a beam of light to say mars. But oh wait it can only travel at the speed of light. But it gets there we can instantly play with it of course once it gets there. Now we capture it on Mars or even stop it. But no matter what happens next we Had travel time involved. By the way easier to use radio signal less trouble.

We have to send a signal to tell them what changes to look for in say spin. And than we have to tell them what it means to decipher our beam of light we sent to mars ( AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT).

Is any of this sinking in for you yet. Now we want to have secure encryption well being able to manipulate things using the same beam of light on earth and mars that's great. The beam of light we split becomes a key with random bumps we can use to create a lock and be the key. Any encryption with true random numbers is impossible to hack.




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   
He asks the same question again because he does not understand the uncertainty principle, which is at the root of everything discussed here.

He would like to answer the phone before it rings.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Maverick7
Heisenberg principle will not permit FTL communication.


If you stay in This plane of existence and not drop into the quantum dimension where standard models break right? Each dimension has different rules. Has anyone considered maybe einstein was a Disinformation agent a s part of his citizenship deal?
Each dimension may have totally different laws of physics. But Einstein may have been an unwitting disinfo agent. But hey, he still reigns as a demi god in MS domain.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

What???

Have you read anything I've said??

Who said entangled pairs of photons didn't have to travel to separate destinations at the speed of light? That has nothing to do with the fact that you can have FTL communication between these entangled photons. This is why there's so many people looking into and researching things like a quantum internet or quantum communication between computers. It's because the benefits are simply astounding. Of course you don't get because you don't take the time to research these things and to try and understand these things.

You then said this:

We have to send a signal to tell them what changes to look for in say spin.

Again, you don't listen. You don't understand things like signal to noise ratios in information channels when it comes to breaking entanglement.

I have told you time and time again and yet you keep repeating the same thing. I wish you would stop blindly replying with the same nonsense and respond to things I've actually said.

I didn't say anything about checking spin. Here's the simple question yet again, that none of you guys have answered. This is because instead of taking the time to read up on these things, you blindly respond with the same knee jerk response.

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

If I have a computer with 5 information channels and the computer on mars has 5 information channels and I want to send him 01111 instantly, I just break the entanglement in channel 1 and the computer on mars will have a weaker signal to noise ration in channel 1.

If I want to instantly send to the computer on mars 01011, then the person on earth breaks the entanglement for channels 1 and 3 and channels 1 and 3 will have a weaker signal to noise ration on mars. Again, you will have a network of computers that communicate instantly. These things are being worked on know and the main thing that's being worked on is security issues.

So again, what I'm saying has nothing to do with detecting spin. I keep telling you that and you just blindly make the same comments. So I repeat my question yet again,

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

Please try to debate the things that I've actually said and if you don't understand the research into these areas, read up on it before you respond with the same blind response.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

If I want to instantly send to the computer on mars 01011, then the person on earth breaks the entanglement for channels 1 and 3 and channels 1 and 3 will have a weaker signal to noise ration on mars. Again, you will have a network of computers that communicate instantly. These things are being worked on know and the main thing that's being worked on is security issues.

Yes, much better. Thanks. Now just make it 8 and you will have a byte and wont have to reinvent anything.
Here is your "D"
01000100
binarytranslator.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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.


LOL

You have to recombine the photons to see the higher signal to noise ratio!

Here the important part, that you seem to have missed completely:



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.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

This might also open up communication with the past. If a quantum internet or some sort of quantum communication device is used in 2020 then in 2025 a person might be able to send information to themselves from 2020.


Sending it back would be more useful. As presented they could just write a letter.
No snark really, great thread.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

Sadly, you misunderstand several things. I suspect this comes from a lack of understanding on things like information channels, signal to noise ratios and breaking entanglement.

First, the article was looking at something specific called Quantum Illumination:


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.


This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It simply shows that if your goal is to detect a far away object, then you can do so by using entangled photons to distinguish the reflected light from the background.

My goal isn't detecting an object that's far away. My goal isn't Quantum Illumination of a distant object.

If Alice is trying to detect a far away object that's with Bob, then of course she's going to have to recombine the the light coming from Bob with the retained signal in order to illuminate the far away object.

This has ZERO to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Bob and Alice computers communicating via signal to noise ratios, entanglement breaking and information channels. This has nothing to do with Quantum Illumination and using quantum entanglement to illuminate a distant object.

This is why you have to read things in their entirety and then try to understand them. The question that's still being avoided:

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?
edit on 15-2-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The signal to noise ratio is simple you use entangled photons to filter out noise Which is background radiation.

Your stuck in your understanding of how photons and entangled particles work. Using them to transmit data in any circumstance other than as a checksum can't be done.once we look at an entangled particle to see what it's doing we break entanglement.

If we could find a way to not break entanglement but still observe something to small for us to see without adding energy to the system. You seem to believe this to be possible it isn't but let's say we did you stI'll have to break it to alter the other particle to send the info to the other. There is no way not to break entanglement so to send a signal we need to send a constant stream of entangled particles.

So in other words we have to send a laser to Mars to send our signal.And it has to be a constant steam.so than why would we go through all this when we can just send a signal by radio it's much easier.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Dragon. Say if you could drop a signal to the quantum level. Which is in another dimension. Do you think the laws of this dimension apply? THAT is what i think he is talking about. Speed in a quantum space would be way faster and compressed prolly. Which means a message sent there can take a very short time while a message here will take a long time to send here.

SO in effect you can send bits of data here that would be equal to a single letter here but make total sense there due to its speed depending on if the bits were flashed fast enough.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Its probably already been done, back in the day, Charlton Heston was talking about, cells that were removed from a human donor, reacted emotionally as if they were still in the donors mouth . He said this effect could be used for space communication. I have scoured the net and the only mention was in one site who's use by date is up. Maybe its getting pulled/already pulled? Which means that the cells were still quantum entangled with the donor. Its a messy biological solution, which has been seen in Russian submarines, with regards to mother rabbit being back in Moscow wired to an EEG, and her offspring being on board the sub. If one of the offspring was killed it sends mother rabbits EEG. crazy . The Sub surfaces sends encrypted message and then dives again. If that information was twenty years back its probably some sort of biological computer that we will see on the market in fifty years.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dragonridr

Dragon. Say if you could drop a signal to the quantum level. Which is in another dimension. Do you think the laws of this dimension apply? THAT is what i think he is talking about. Speed in a quantum space would be way faster and compressed prolly. Which means a message sent there can take a very short time while a message here will take a long time to send here.

SO in effect you can send bits of data here that would be equal to a single letter here but make total sense there due to its speed depending on if the bits were flashed fast enough.



There in theory are dimensions so small we can't see them or access them they would have been created at the beginning of the universe. Problem is the amount of energy we would need to expand them would be the equivalent of the universe. So simple answer is no. The only hope for faster than light communication is to defy time.

Let's look at a wormhole. It can connect two points in space but could also connect two points in time.Let's say we built a gate on earth and we transport another 1000 light years away. We journey there at the speed of light. When we activate our gate we will connect to the future earth.And yes we could send signals thousands of light years in minutes.provided we can prove worm holes do exist and Einstein wasn't wrong.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, this post has nothing to do with what I'm talking about or any of the current research in these areas. You said:

Using them to transmit data in any circumstance other than as a checksum can't be done

This is a ridiculous statement and science is littered with those who didn't know what they were talking about declaring something couldn't be done.

Also, sending information by radio signals isn't much easier, this is why there's billions of dollars going into research into these areas because these things will make using radio signals look like child's play.



So having instant communication between computers will be a huge benefit.

Again, you're not debating anything I have said and you have failed to answer my simple question and it's obvious you don't understand what I'm saying when you say this:


If we could find a way to not break entanglement but still observe something to small for us to see without adding energy to the system.


What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Why would we need to find a way not to break entanglement when information is being sent by breaking entanglement? You seem to be stuck on the same thing and I keep asking you just to take a little time to read about what I'm saying.

You're still stuck on checking for spin of the particle and like I said several times in this post, spin doesn't matter. It's signal to noise in an information channel when entanglement is broken that's transmitting information not the polarization of a particle. So when you keep asking these same questions that have to do with spin, you're not making any sense as it pertains to this thread.

What are we observing that so small when we're checking for a signal to noise ratio in an information channel? This is totally different than checking to see if a particle is spin up or spin down. I keep saying this over and over and you keep asking the same question.

What does checking for spin have to do with this?

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

At the end of the day, I think when talking about communication through quantum entanglement, it needs to be called instant communication. This is because when people hear faster than light communication they can't think outside what they have heard people say over the years. You can say information isn't traveling through intervening space between two points until you're blue in the face but you will still hear the same nonsense about causality.

The past isn't something that vanishes after you experience it, it exists as a 4 dimensional whole as 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.

This is very important to what I'm saying because when people say you can't send information to the past, what do they mean by to the past? Where has the past gone? Einstein was saying my now two hours ago when I was sleep is no different than my now as I'm typing on my computer. An neither now represent now objectively so if you look at reality from the standpoint of 3 dimensional evolution from when I was sleep to hours ago evolving to now while I'm typing then you're wrong. The past doesn't vanish after you experience it. It still exist as a local now that's part of a larger 4 dimensional structure called space-time.

So the point is, there's nothing prohibiting you from setting up information channels as 1's and 0's and using the signal to noise ratio after entanglement breaking to instantly transmit information faster than light because information isn't traveling through intervening space between two points so causality is preserved.

So you set up a binary system like someone mentioned earlier. Eight information channels and you want to send 00101111. You break the entanglement in channels 1, 2 and 4 and weaken the signal to noise ratio in these channels. It has nothing to do with checking for spin up or spin down. So, I ask yet again:

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
So the point is, there's nothing prohibiting you from setting up information channels as 1's and 0's and using the signal to noise ratio after entanglement breaking to instantly transmit information faster than light because information isn't traveling through intervening space between two points so causality is preserved.
Random information DOES travel at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. The reason that doesn't violate causality is because it's random.

If you think you can send any kind of useful information 10,000 times faster than the speed of light, using any gimmicks you want, then you need to stop talking about it and do it, publish your research, and collect your Nobel prize. Good luck.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?


Be more concrete about the about the experimental setup, and how one specifically would "detect entanglement breaking", and if that can be done over space-like intervals, that is, if you are sending something to Mars and entangling with something going to Venus, can the decision of "which channel had entanglement broken" be made only with results known on Mars?

With conventional experiments where you send correlated particles across space like intervals, the answer is "No". On the Mars side, you see just random bits. On the Venus side you see random bits. Only when you get those two data records back together (through normal communication, slower than light) can you possibly compute that some channels have great correlation with |rho| = 0.99. Statistically the bits are random conditioned on the location.

with QM you have to get really specific. In the past in every one of these circumstances, scientists find out that when you compute it right you can't get FTL communication. Will your scheme be an exception? Unlikely, but you have to propose something very specific. You aren't specific enough---a specific question can get a specific answer.

In QM, "something" is coordinated across FTL intervals, but whatever that something is always wriggles away when you try to make it do macroscopic information.
edit on 16-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You keep asking the same question not realizing it's been answered. But let's try this way kind of channels are we talking about are we splitting say 6 lasers and shipping are beams to 2 locations. see you don't understand what they mean by channels so let's get specific. Now when are lasers get to the location what are we looking for frequency changes or polarity changes. And finally how can we check to know which particles are indeed entangled particles without comparing our results.

So answer these and I'll explain further the problem with what you think to be true.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's becoming increasingly clear that FTL communication is possible. There's often a religious knee jerk reaction when you mention FTL communication but there shouldn't be. The key to remember here is information isn't traveling faster than light. It isn't traveling at all through intervening space and therefore causality is secured.


Einstein's famous equation should tell you that something in our universe can move up to the speed of light squared - given the right energy and mass. So, no, it's not teleportation. The motive particle is just too small and too fast for us to detect.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

None of you guys have answered anything. Like I said, I suggest you do some research in these areas. Entanglement breaking yields a weaker signal to noise ratio in an information channel. This is why I keep asking the question and it hasn't been answered:

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

Here's some additional info:

Entanglement enhanced information transmission over a quantum channel with correlated noise


We show that entanglement is a useful resource to enhance the mutual information of the depolarizing channel when the noise on consecutive uses of the channel has some partial correlations. We obtain a threshold in the degree of memory, depending on the shrinking factor of the channel, above which a higher amount of classical information is transmitted with entangled signals.


arxiv.org...

Entanglement's Benefit Survives an Entanglement-Breaking Channel


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.


arxiv.org...

Entanglement detection via continuous quantum channels


For any N⊗N-type bipartite system with even N>2, two-parameter continuous families of unital block-dephasing quantum channels and of weakly optimal entanglement witnesses are constructed from special forms of a parametrized positive map. The parameter domains of the families are complementary subsets of a convex set and this fact reveals unusual combination rules of quantum channels and entanglement witnesses. These rules make it possible to develop many physically implementable direct entanglement-detection methods that provide a unified framework to accomplish both information-processing and entanglement-detection tasks by means of smooth quantum channels, without any reference to entanglement witnesses.


journals.aps.org...

Look, it's clear that you don't understand the subject matter yet you're trying to debate against something that you don't understand. I show these things because it clearly shows the benefit of a noisy channel when it comes to entanglement. For some reason you can't grasp something that's so simple. Here's more on a quantum channel. When a quantum channel is noisy it allows you to send classical or quantum information through things like entanglement breaking.


In quantum information theory, a quantum channel is a communication channel which can transmit quantum information, as well as classical information. An example of quantum information is the state of a qubit. An example of classical information is a text document transmitted over the Internet.

In the channel-state duality, a channel is separable if and only if the corresponding state is separable. Several other characterizations of separable channels are known, notably that a channel is separable if and only if it is entanglement-breaking.


en.wikipedia.org...

Why is this the case? IT'S BECAUSE OF ENTANGLEMENT BREAKING.

You can separate the channels because entanglement breaking gives you a different signal to noise ratio that makes the channel distinguishable from the corresponding state of a dual channel.

EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING!

Here's another important result.

High-fidelity transmission of entanglement over a high-loss free-space channel


Quantum entanglement enables tasks not possible in classical physics. Many quantum communication protocols1 require the distribution of entangled states between distant parties. Here, we experimentally demonstrate the successful transmission of an entangled photon pair over a 144 km free-space link. The received entangled states have excellent, noise-limited fidelity, even though they are exposed to extreme attenuation dominated by turbulent atmospheric effects. The total channel loss of 64 dB corresponds to the estimated attenuation regime for a two-photon satellite communication scenario. We confirm that the received two-photon states are still highly entangled by violating the Clauser–Horne–Shimony–Holt inequality by more than five standard deviations. From a fundamental point of view, our results show that the photons are subject to virtually no decoherence during their 0.5-ms-long flight through air, which is encouraging for future worldwide quantum communication scenarios.


www.nature.com...

HOW DID THEY KNOW THE ENTANGLED PHOTONS STILL HAD A HIGH CORRELATION WITHOUT BREAKING ENTANGLEMENT? LOL!!!

If the entangled photons were subject to entanglement breaking then you would detect decoherence and a weaker signal and more channel loss if entanglement breaking occurred and you had weaker correlations.

I ask again:

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

I don't know how you can read this last part and it not be crystal clear as to what I'm saying.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

What you don't get is signal to noise ratio refers to the amount photons that are entangled vs the number that are not. In this example we can use our other pair of entangled particles. To detect a difference in frequency. In this case frequency can be looked at as intensity of our light beam. OR in other words your clueless. You seem to think it has something to do with communications It doesn't.

So now what your calling an information channel is get ready for it a beam of light. By the way just so. You know we already communicate using light we call it fiber optics. You can have thousands of channels.

I was waiting for you to explain your belief but I see your so far off the mark that trying to get you to explain is a waist of tine.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I did explain it. I laid it out for you in simple terms. You should try and take the time to actually read up on these things and try to understand them.

You said:

What you don't get is signal to noise ratio refers to the amount photons that are entangled vs the number that are not.

This is just utter nonsense.

A signal to noise ratio is different between two sets of entangled photons.

For instance, you have entangled photon pair A and B. You then have entangled photon pair C and D.

BOTH PAIRS ARE ENTANGLED!

It has nothing to do with vs. the number that are not entangled. This is just hogwash.

So what happens?

A and B are set up on an information channel and C and D are set up on a separate information channel. Now this comes into play:

In the channel-state duality, a channel is separable if and only if the corresponding state is separable. Several other characterizations of separable channels are known, notably that a channel is separable if and only if it is entanglement-breaking.

If both channels are highly correlated then both channels will have a high signal to noise ratio.

Say you want A and B to equal 1 and you want the channel with C and D to equal 0. You break entanglement in that channel and the signal to noise ratio will be weaker between C and D then it is between the entangled photon pair A and D.

Again I ask:

Why couldn't you detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join