Faster than light communication and breaking entanglement

a reply to: neoholographic

The reason you can distinguish the difference in signal to noise ie a frequency change is because we can separate the entangled pairs. To do this we have to compare the two channels together. Are you seeing the problem I'm trying to explain to you yet?

a reply to: dragonridr

I HIGHLY suggest you actually try to read and understand these things because at this point you're just throwing things out there and hoping it sticks. I explained it to you and now it comes down to 2 options. Either you don't understand anything that's being said yet you're still trying to debate against the issue or you somewhat understand but you have an internet ego that's to stubborn to simply say you're wrong.

You said:

The reason you can distinguish the difference in signal to noise ie a frequency change is because we can separate the entangled pairs. To do this we have to compare the two channels together. Are you seeing the problem I'm trying to explain to you yet?

Again, just hogwash. You don't have to compare anything together and this is why you have two separate channels.

You can have one pair of entangled photons in one information channel and you don't have to compare it to anything to know you have strong correlation between photons based on the high signal to noise ratio.

When you have two separate channels, you don't have to compare anything. You know one channel will be a 1 and the other channel will be an 0.

Say you have a 5 channel system between computers A and B. You want the channels to equal 100011. You just break entanglement in channels 2,3 and 4 and those channels will have a weaker signal to noise ration in their separate channels. There's no need to compare anything and like I said you can do this with a single channel.

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.

Again, it all leads back to 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?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

I HIGHLY suggest you actually try to read and understand these things because at this point you're just throwing things out there and hoping it sticks. I explained it to you and now it comes down to 2 options. Either you don't understand anything that's being said yet you're still trying to debate against the issue or you somewhat understand but you have an internet ego that's to stubborn to simply say you're wrong.

You said:

The reason you can distinguish the difference in signal to noise ie a frequency change is because we can separate the entangled pairs. To do this we have to compare the two channels together. Are you seeing the problem I'm trying to explain to you yet?

Again, just hogwash. You don't have to compare anything together and this is why you have two separate channels.

You can have one pair of entangled photons in one information channel and you don't have to compare it to anything to know you have strong correlation between photons based on the high signal to noise ratio.

When you have two separate channels, you don't have to compare anything. You know one channel will be a 1 and the other channel will be an 0.

Say you have a 5 channel system between computers A and B. You want the channels to equal 100011. You just break entanglement in channels 2,3 and 4 and those channels will have a weaker signal to noise ration in their separate channels. There's no need to compare anything and like I said you can do this with a single channel.

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.

Again, it all leads back to 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?

Think you better re read your quote again and think about what it's telling you so let me ask this how do you separate a coresponding state? ( clue here compare the two together) DO you know this is done? See this is what happens when someone is clueless on how physics works reads a paper. In papers the person writing it expects it to be read by others that understand physics.

a reply to: dragonridr

Again, throwing things out there and hoping it sticks.

You don't have to compare anything. They become separable because of entanglemt breaking.

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

The channels aren't separable if they both share a high correlation. This is because both channels will have a high signal to noise ratio. When you break entanglement in a particle pair for one channel it weakens the signal to noise ratio. You don't have to compare anything.

The channel that has high correlation between particles will not fall below a certain threshold when it comes to signal to noise.

The channel where entanglement is broken will fall below that threshold.

This has been done with just a single pair of entangled photons on one channel. They didn't have anything to compare it to. They just knew the particle pair had strong correlations because the signal to noise didn't fall below a certain threshold.

Again, you have to stop throwing nonsense out there and hoping it sticks. A lot of these things can be avoided if you just read up on these things and tried to understand them.

The question:

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?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, throwing things out there and hoping it sticks.

You don't have to compare anything. They become separable because of entanglemt breaking.

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

The channels aren't separable if they both share a high correlation. This is because both channels will have a high signal to noise ratio. When you break entanglement in a particle pair for one channel it weakens the signal to noise ratio. You don't have to compare anything.

The channel that has high correlation between particles will not fall below a certain threshold when it comes to signal to noise.

The channel where entanglement is broken will fall below that threshold.

This has been done with just a single pair of entangled photons on one channel. They didn't have anything to compare it to. They just knew the particle pair had strong correlations because the signal to noise didn't fall below a certain threshold.

Again, you have to stop throwing nonsense out there and hoping it sticks. A lot of these things can be avoided if you just read up on these things and tried to understand them.

The question:

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?

Ok please explain how they detect entanglement breaking maybe this will help you realize you dont understand. So lay out the experiment we have our channels what are we monitoring and how do we do it? How do we determine a frequency change? How do we get our entangled particles to two different locarions.How do we determine what part of our light beam we need to measure.How long do we have to break entanglement on our beam of light. And how do we know that entanglement wasn't broken during travel this applies to deep space since it's hard not to have energy hit our beam.

Can you answer ant of these queations?

a reply to: dragonridr

Asked and answered and now you're just on a fishing expedition and I'm done going back and forth with. I have answered all these questions and listed published papers of experiments that answers all of these questions. If you're not going to take the time to actually try to understand the issue you're debating, it's just a waste of time.

Last post you were talking about comparing corresponding states which has nothing to do with anything.

Before that you talked about comparing entangled photons to non entangled photons, which have nothing to do with anything.

Before that you were talking about causality, which has nothing to do with anything.

I'm through going back and forth with you. I will just refer you to past posts. This is a 7 page thread and you're just fishing. There's ways to debate against what I'm saying but you have just been throwing things out there that have nothing to do with anything that I'm saying.

What does this even mean??

How do we determine what part of our light beam we need to measure.How long do we have to break entanglement on our beam of light. And how do we know that entanglement wasn't broken during travel this applies to deep space since it's hard not to have energy hit our beam.

This has nothing to do with information channels and anything that I'm talking about. There's no time limit to break entanglement. You easily know information wasn't broken because the signal to noise ratio has fell below a certain threshold.

Like I said, these things have been asked and answered. All you need to do is simply answer the question.

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?

You or anyone else haven't answered the question and explained why this would be prohibited. You have just been throwing things out there and hoping it sticks.

So until you answer the simple question and explain why this would be prohibited from occurring, you will just get referred to a previous post. Just explain why this is prohibited and can't occur. Stop avoiding the question.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

Asked and answered and now you're just on a fishing expedition and I'm done going back and forth with. I have answered all these questions and listed published papers of experiments that answers all of these questions. If you're not going to take the time to actually try to understand the issue you're debating, it's just a waste of time.

Last post you were talking about comparing corresponding states which has nothing to do with anything.

Before that you talked about comparing entangled photons to non entangled photons, which have nothing to do with anything.

Before that you were talking about causality, which has nothing to do with anything.

I'm through going back and forth with you. I will just refer you to past posts. This is a 7 page thread and you're just fishing. There's ways to debate against what I'm saying but you have just been throwing things out there that have nothing to do with anything that I'm saying.

What does this even mean??

How do we determine what part of our light beam we need to measure.How long do we have to break entanglement on our beam of light. And how do we know that entanglement wasn't broken during travel this applies to deep space since it's hard not to have energy hit our beam.

This has nothing to do with information channels and anything that I'm talking about. There's no time limit to break entanglement. You easily know information wasn't broken because the signal to noise ratio has fell below a certain threshold.

Like I said, these things have been asked and answered. All you need to do is simply answer the question.

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?

You or anyone else haven't answered the question and explained why this would be prohibited. You have just been throwing things out there and hoping it sticks.

So until you answer the simple question and explain why this would be prohibited from occurring, you will just get referred to a previous post. Just explain why this is prohibited and can't occur. Stop avoiding the question.

I give up you don't even understand the queations. I'll make it easy post a paper I'll look it over and you can tell me how you think it can be used for communications. And I'll tell you what I'll even review it if it's published for you. And we can go as far as running the experiments in my lab if it looks promissing.

I have most of what we would need since I have a collegue here working on encryption using entangled photons.

originally posted by: neoholographic

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?

First, what do you mean about "subsequent" channels? Do you mean a secondary simultaneous channel, or some sort of time-division multiplexing? (parallel vs serial communication of bits).

How do you propose to get FTL communication out of this? I don't see any way.

Please answer my question about the specific experimental setup you propose.

But first, please repeat your understanding of what it means to "detect entanglement breaking", as in what needs to be measured and what computations need to take place to decide if entanglement is broken or not.

Don't respond with repeating the same question in bold, we've seen it before.

I see it's time again for OP's monthly "FTL communication is possible and everyone else is an idiot for not agreeing with me" thread. Can't these threads be merged or something? It's the same infinite loop of dialog that persists in every thread of his on this topic.

a reply to: mbkennel

Asked and answered:

First off, if you don't understand the basics, you're not going to learn them by blindly replying on a message board. I have listed tons of information in this thread including actual experiments and published papers. It seems you guys just skip any facts that stand in the way and ask the same questions.

For instance you asked:

But first, please repeat your understanding of what it means to "detect entanglement breaking", as in what needs to be measured and what computations need to take place to decide if entanglement is broken or not.

This is simply a silly question. You guys ask these types of questions because you're just fishing. Detecting breaking of entanglement just didn't occur yesterday. It's been around for awhile. If you would have read the first paper I listed, you wouldn't have to ask such questions. But you guys don't read or try to understand anything, you just blindly ask the same questions.

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.

What does this mean as it pertains to this thread? It shows you yet again that there's a threshold of channel noise where the signal to noise ratio can be detected. I posted another article that showed the channel noise in a channel that's strongly correlated.

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.

These things are simple, basic knowledge of entanglement breaking, signal to noise ratios and information channels.

Here's even more:

New micro-ring resonator creates quantum entanglement on a silicon chip

The quantum entanglement of particles, such as photons, is a prerequisite for the new and future technologies of quantum computing, telecommunications, and cyber security. Real-world applications that take advantage of this technology, however, will not be fully realized until devices that produce such quantum states leave the realms of the laboratory and are made both small and energy efficient enough to be embedded in electronic equipment. In this vein, European scientists have created and installed a tiny "ring-resonator" on a microchip that is claimed to produce copious numbers of entangled photons while using very little power to do so.

Entangled photons have been produced on a silicon chip before, but the number of pairs produced was low, and the amount of energy required to achieve this was prohibitively high – especially on a low-powered device such as a silicon chip. This is where the new micro-ring resonator claims its points of difference.

www.gizmag.com...

Again, these things have been researched for years. All I ask is that people simply read what they're trying to debate against so they can debate these things intelligently. Like I said, these things have been done and Scientist are just trying to figure out ways to make it more efficient and secure before they go to the public. All you you have to do is read.

So you're not sending anyone information faster than light, you're communicating with them instantly. Information isn't traveling between two points faster than light. I have said this over and over again in this thread and it 's still not grasped by some.

So from here it's simple. If you have 2 informations channels with entangled photon pairs. One going to Alice the other going to Bob. When the signal to noise ratio is highly correlated that's a 1. When the correlation is broken and the signal to noise ratio is weaker that's an 0.

highly correlated/weakly correlated
1/0
yes/no

It's simple common sense.

When a particle pair is entangled they are correlated. You break entanglement by simply changing one part of the correlated system which adds more noise to the information channel and gives you a weaker signal to noise ratio.

Again, I HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE ON TOP OF EVIDENCE ON TOP OF EVIDENCE. You guys have presented nothing and can't even answer this simple question:

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?

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS PROHIBITED AND CAN'T OCCUR.

Why can't you have a network of correlated/uncorrelated with instant communication between the network?

originally posted by: GetHyped
I see it's time again for OP's monthly "FTL communication is possible and everyone else is an idiot for not agreeing with me" thread. Can't these threads be merged or something? It's the same infinite loop of dialog that persists in every thread of his on this topic.

Perhaps your right. But before ...what about GPS satellites, having to be recalibrated because their "time" gets out of synch with the Earths surface. In this case are we to consider that, to a small account at least, the satellite is travelling into the future faster than the earths surface is? which means the electromagnetic wave, has in part partaken of time travel, into the past. Then does this mean that faster than light communication, would also have a time component, which might mean that the message might end up in the future or even the past? because to get the message if FTL. were possible, it might not be time stable , as the speed time distance equasion, lacks distance travelled in time.?

a reply to: neoholographic

Paper please didn't ask for the same statements you keep repeating hoping someone doesn't realize your areclueless. As I said in your experiment hie do we detect it?? I'd also like to know how you get rid of random photons as well. So far you've presented no evidence that you understand anyway. The paper you keep quoting is talking about a passive way to detect when we loose decoherrance. And hiw that could be used when comparing two data sets.

If we have 5 channels like you say w e can continually monitor our entangled particles by comparing it to anither set.or taken a step further use it to encrypt data since we could use totally random numbers that can only be unencrypted by the computer we sent the other light pulse to.

So once again let's see a paper and will discuss that and go from there.

a reply to: dragonridr

You're not making any sense.

Why do we need to compare it to another set when were checking for a strong or weak signal in an information channel?

Have you read anything I have posted or do you just keep throwing things out there and hope it sticks. Why do you keep avoiding the simple question. If this can't be done then tell us why it's prohibited.

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?

With each post you just dig yourself deeper into a hole. You can't simple explain why this can't occur.

I dont belive its just two entanglements.
the univers has no limit.
so how can you have two
entanglement atoms near each other?

I would say more than one.
or some kind of link
that comes from the observer.
like the cat in a box!

and I bet some people still belive in the big bang!

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

You're not making any sense.

Why do we need to compare it to another set when were checking for a strong or weak signal in an information channel?

Have you read anything I have posted or do you just keep throwing things out there and hope it sticks. Why do you keep avoiding the simple question. If this can't be done then tell us why it's prohibited.

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?

With each post you just dig yourself deeper into a hole. You can't simple explain why this can't occur.

Again paper please since I'm assuming your monitoring frequency of a laser pulse. The question becomes how do you know what the signal to noise ratio is is we can't distinguish between the two.

Thus again is why I'm asking for a paper than I can explain to you what they are truly talking about instead of what you believe it to mean. Simple show me the experiment what are we using to measure our channel and what are we using to entangle particles. I'm assuming were splitting our beam of light sending it along two channels where are we sending it to. See thus us why we need a paper instead of cherry picked quotes.

a reply to: dragonridr

Asked and answered. You said:

The question becomes how do you know what the signal to noise ratio is is we can't distinguish between the two.

This again makes no sense, but go ahead and explain what you're talking about. You said we can't distinguish between the two.

Explain why you can't distinguish between entangled particles that are highly correlated and entangled particles where entanglement is broken. We know what thresholds tell us when there's strong correlation vs. weak correlation so when you say compare the two you're not making any sense.

Again, I have listed published papers and experiments and you have said nothing. You just keep throwing stuff against the wall and hoping it sticks.

You said:

Simple show me the experiment what are we using to measure our channel and what are we using to entangle particles. I'm assuming were splitting our beam of light sending it along two channels where are we sending it to. See thus us why we need a paper instead of cherry picked quotes.

Again, more nonsense and fishing. All of these things have been done and published over and over again. The simple thing you need to answer is why is this prohibited. You keep going in circles and avoiding answering the question.

All you have to do is say, you can't do this because....... Instead you're talking crazy about a colleague in a lab and asking for a paper so you can explain something. This is just nonsense.

I have listed tons of papers and experiments and explained my position. Now you're asking for a paper to explain something and it's just hogwash. Just explain why this would be prohibited.

What it simply shows is, you have no answer why this can't occur. If you did, you wouldn't be all over the place avoiding the simple question.

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?

So, I'm through debating you until you answer the question. You have a 7 page thread and I've explained myself. All I'm asking is for you or someone on this thread to explain why this can't happen based on our current understanding of entanglement breaking, signal to noise ratios and information channels.

Please, no more obfuscating and fishing. Just answer the question.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mbkennel

Asked and answered:

First off, if you don't understand the basics, you're not going to learn them by blindly replying on a message board. I have listed tons of information in this thread including actual experiments and published papers. It seems you guys just skip any facts that stand in the way and ask the same questions.

For instance you asked:

But first, please repeat your understanding of what it means to "detect entanglement breaking", as in what needs to be measured and what computations need to take place to decide if entanglement is broken or not.

This is simply a silly question. You guys ask these types of questions because you're just fishing. Detecting breaking of entanglement just didn't occur yesterday. It's been around for awhile. If you would have read the first paper I listed, you wouldn't have to ask such questions.

I'm not asking what papers think it is, I'm asking what YOU think it means and how it is accomplished.

But you guys don't read or try to understand anything, you just blindly ask the same questions.

I actually download and read many of the quoted articles.

So from here it's simple. If you have 2 informations channels with entangled photon pairs. One going to Alice the other going to Bob.

What precisely is the "one" and what is the "other"? Is Alice getting one photon from each of the pairs, and Bob the corresponding ones? (That's what I'm assuming). Or is Alice getting two photons from one entangled pair and Bob the other two photons from the other pair? (In that case they are independent and Alice doesn't communicate with Bob).

When the signal to noise ratio is highly correlated that's a 1. When the correlation is broken and the signal to noise ratio is weaker that's an 0.

highly correlated/weakly correlated
1/0
yes/no

It's simple common sense.

When a particle pair is entangled they are correlated. You break entanglement by simply changing one part of the correlated system which adds more noise to the information channel and gives you a weaker signal to noise ratio.

OK, there you go, no problem.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS PROHIBITED AND CAN'T OCCUR.

It can occur, but it's not useful. You don't get FTL information transfer (the usual meaning of 'communication' for purposes like a modem).

Why can't you have a network of correlated/uncorrelated with instant communication between the network?

You can (if you call 'instant communication' the QM version which ensures correlations and not human-useful communicatino) but it's not useful as a practical FTL communication tool.

You don't know, looking only at the experimental results at one end ONLY, which of detector channels are the correlated ones and which are not, and so you can't assign the result of "bits" to them.

Alice gets a stream of results of detectors. Suppose you have a fixed clock and on each clock cycle you measure
(x,y) with each of x being in [+1,-1] representing polarizations and the two pairs being the two channels.

Alice records 1000 pairs of (xa,ya). Looking at these data alone, xa and ya are random in [-1,+1] with no sequential correlation or any cross correlation, they appear to be totally random bits.

Bob, far away on Venus, records 1000 of his different (xb,yb). Bob also sees xb,yb are random in [-1,+1] with no sequential correlation or any cross correlation, they appear to be totally random bits.

Now you write these results on the data computers at each end, and transmit, using ordinary slow light-speed communication both results from Alice and Bob to the central supercomputer on Memory Alpha.

Whoa! the X channel is entangled! whenever Alice recorded xa=+1, Bob recorded xb=-1, and vice versa! perfect anticorrelation!

But the Y channel isn't entangled. Whenever Alice recorded ya=+1, Bob recorded yb=+1 and -1 with equal probability.

So yes, you NOW know channel X is entangled and channel Y isn't. You only knew this after transmitting the information to Memory Alpha via a conventional slow link.

a reply to: mbkennel

This is the reason why people have been avoiding my simple question because they can't show why it would be prohibited.

So yes, a instant communication network can be set up between computers. This is why billions of dollars is being poured into research into things like a quantum internet and quantum communications. You said:

It can occur, but it's not useful.

First off, this is the reason you guys have been avoiding my simple question. Because of course it can occur and it will be very useful. This is why they're puring billions into these things because most of these things have already been done. They're just trying to figure out how to scale things up and make the networks more secure.

Also, your example is hogwash and has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

Alice gets a stream of photons in each of the 5 channels that equal 11111 and have a high signal to noise ratio. Polarization doesn't matter and I've said this over and over again. She can get a random distribution of spin up and spin down in each channel.

Each of the 5 channels will be a stream of entangled particles. Say you generate these entangled pairs in a micro ring resonator on a silicon chip. If Bob wants to change channels 2 and 4 to an 0, he just breaks entanglement on channels 2 and 4 and on Alice's network channels 2 and 4 will have a weaker signal to noise ratio.

The problem you're having is one, you already said that it can be done and two you're talking about encoding information on spin. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

If I was trying to get a message from Bob to Alice encoding information on spin up/spin down, it would be hard to send useful information because Alice and Bob would both receive a random distribution of spin up/spin down. For the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

You said:

You can (if you call 'instant communication' the QM version which ensures correlations and not human-useful communicatino) but it's not useful as a practical FTL communication tool.

Of course you can and this is why you guys have avoided my question like the plague. The rest of what you're saying is gobbledy-gook.

a reply to: neoholographic

Much of this stuff is beyond my capability, but I am sometimes able to find appropriate source materials that may contain the correct answers.

In this case the best information appears to lie in a 2013 paper by Nick Herbert where he breaks down a more recent scientific explanation for FTL communication. It may also be the source of the Alice and Bob experiment from 'the Kalamidas Effect'.

FTL Signaling Made Easy: Maximizing the Kalamidas Effect

Recently Demetrios Kalamidas published a purported FTL signaling
scheme (Kalamidas 2013) which is clever but hard to understand due
to a difficult-to-read choice of naming conventions. So that his inge-
nious experiment may be more widely appreciated, I reproduce his
proof, using more obvious (to me) notation.

Although both photons are path-superposed, Bob can break that su-
perposition by measuring either B1 or B2 thus collapsing his B photon
to a single path. Because of their mutual entanglement, Alice's photon
also (instantly?) collapses to a single path. When Alice's photon trav-
els both paths (1 and 2), there is the possibility of her detecting inter-
ference; when Alice's photon travels only one path, interference is im-
possible. The Kalamidas Effect works by using a novel way of erasing
Bob's "which-path info" and hence distantly producing or suppressing
interference at Alice's detectors.

Read more here: QUANTUM TANTRA: Investigating New Doorways Into Nature

originally posted by: corsair00
a reply to: neoholographic

Much of this stuff is beyond my capability, but I am sometimes able to find appropriate source materials that may contain the correct answers.

In this case the best information appears to lie in a 2013 paper by Nick Herbert where he breaks down a more recent scientific explanation for FTL communication. It may also be the source of the Alice and Bob experiment from 'the Kalamidas Effect'.

FTL Signaling Made Easy: Maximizing the Kalamidas Effect

Recently Demetrios Kalamidas published a purported FTL signaling
scheme (Kalamidas 2013) which is clever but hard to understand due
to a difficult-to-read choice of naming conventions. So that his inge-
nious experiment may be more widely appreciated, I reproduce his
proof, using more obvious (to me) notation.

Although both photons are path-superposed, Bob can break that su-
perposition by measuring either B1 or B2 thus collapsing his B photon
to a single path. Because of their mutual entanglement, Alice's photon
also (instantly?) collapses to a single path. When Alice's photon trav-
els both paths (1 and 2), there is the possibility of her detecting inter-
ference; when Alice's photon travels only one path, interference is im-
possible. The Kalamidas Effect works by using a novel way of erasing
Bob's "which-path info" and hence distantly producing or suppressing
interference at Alice's detectors.

Read more here: QUANTUM TANTRA: Investigating New Doorways Into Nature

Im going to say this is a unique idea. the way this appears to work is when bob can erase path information alice should see this as an interference pattern on her end.basically our photon would interfere with itself and she wouldnt see anything. Think +1 and -1 would equal 0. Now my first thought is no matter how we play this out however alice is going to need a key to decode the information. Heres what i mean when dealing with quantum erasure bob has two paths if we scramble both paths alice sees the interference but it would be invisible to her because the anti signal and signal from our two separate beams. The only way she could detect it is to remove the interference pattern. we need to know which channel she needs to observe for the message and obviously remove the signal from the other. Ill say this adds a spin however because all bob is doing is attempting to ambiguify the signal to alice. But i suspect without bob sending trigger information to alice we have nothing but random data on her end.

That being said i have a colleague in the optics lab that is far more versed in this field than i and ill have him take a look. But i suspect hes going to agree with me and the results wont be different from countless other experiments meaning we receive an encrypted data stream. This is why i kept telling you guys over and over this scheme is great for hiding information just not transporting it faster than light.