Faster than light communication and breaking entanglement

originally posted by: corsair00
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'...

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

Quantum tantra, eh?

Here's a paper explaining why that doesn't work:

On Kalamidas' proposal of faster than light quantum communication

In a recent paper, Kalamidas has advanced a new proposal of faster than light communication which has not yet been proved invalid. In this paper, by strictly sticking to the standard quantum formalism we prove that, as all previous proposals, it does not work....

The idea that quantum entanglement and quantum interactions with a part of a composite
system allow faster than light communication has been entertained for quite a long time. All
existing proposals have been shown to be unviable. For a general overview we refer the reader to
papers by Herbert [1], Selleri [2], Eberhard [3], Ghirardi & Weber [4], Ghirardi, Rimini & Weber [5],
Herbert [6], Ghirardi (who has derived the no-cloning theorem just to reject the challenging proposal
[6] by Herbert - see the document attached to ref [7]), and, more recently, by Greenberger [8] and
Kalamidas [9]. A detailed analysis of the problem and the explicit refutation of all proposals
excluding the one of Kalamidas appear in the recent work by Ghirardi [7].
In view of the interest of the subject and of the fact that a lively debate on the topic is still
going on we consider our duty to make rigorously clear that the proposal [9] is basically flawed.

There are lots of ideas on how to communicate faster than light as suggested by the nine papers listed there, but, none of them work with useful information.

I'm not going to say FTL communication of useful information is impossible, but I am going to say "prove it" and nobody has, according to that paper and the paper by Ghirardi it references.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I like how the UFO in your avatar picture is so explicitly NUTS and BOLTS. It tells me a lot about you as a person and as a scientist.

Think outside the box. It's hard to do when you have spent good money on an education that may or may not be a science that went off on a tangent and is stuck in a cul-de-sac. I am only saying this as an outside observer. I don't have to prove anything. I can look for information that supports an idea that seems plausible to me, you can look for information that does not support same idea that seems implausible to you given an academic and ideological bias.



The problem with the world is we all speak a different language, essentially, and are all adamant about the words we use. It is essentially a type of arrogance. I don't see this as a conspiracy, but the academic world is riddled with turf wars and biases that are just as nasty as religious and ideological disputes worldwide. And just as stifling to progress...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you i was right and you saved me time

a reply to: corsair00

The academic world is cut throat you better be able to prove your claims and it has to be reproducible by others. Dont think by any means people randomly decide based on verbiage. Peer reviews are harsh trust me having had papers blown out the water over a math error or a new experiment. Especially tough in academia when were required to write papers. But let me say this you think science is rigid and steadfast things couldnt be further from the truth! Scientists all the time try to think outside the box just the man hours i spent trying to disprove Einstein is huge. But you know what every scientist still tries because were hoping for that exception because thats a nobel prize and it will lead us in a new direction. Honestly scientists hate status quo its boring. If we see something that intrests us we take a look at it run through it for possible effects and uses.

The only ones who say science is set are people that have some crackpot idea that has been disproven through experimentation.

a reply to: dragonridr

I thought the time you were going to spend was in talking about the specific experiment in somebody in optics science that is "better versed" on the subject?

You couldn't possibly have already talked to him and asked him to take a look at it, even though you did say that it was a unique experiment/idea. It seems to me that people are more often than not seeking to reinforce their established belief systems. If a theory has been officially debunked or refuted, that is one thing, but doing a 1 minute Google search to see that there happens to be an article that shows there was somebody else out there who was skeptical about something and may have poked a hole or two in some of the minor details... seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Anyways, as you were gentlemen. I am out of my league here. Just my 2 cents...

a reply to: dragonridr
Glad I could help save you some time.

originally posted by: corsair00
The problem with the world is we all speak a different language, essentially, and are all adamant about the words we use. It is essentially a type of arrogance.

Here is an observation that it's not arrogance. Look at the products in people's homes, and cars. The scientists and engineers that speak "mainstream" language are the ones who have developed the science behind, or engineered all your technology; computers, cell phones, 3D printers, and the list goes on. You wouldn't be posting to this thread without them, and that's not arrogance, that's a fact.

The people who speak the other language also have some products in people's homes, which tend to be books and DVDs, about things like "tesla quantum frequency longitudinal free energy wave generator" or "flux thruster atom pulsar electrical venturi spacetime implosion field generator coil".

You can't even play the DVDs by the people who speak the non-mainstream language, without using DVD players made by people who speak the mainstream language.

The way science advances is when people like Einstein come along and explain why mainstream science was wrong to believe Newton's classical mechanics for centuries. He proposed a more accurate model which was then tested, and so far it does seem to work in all the experiments, with the possible exception of detecting gravitational waves, where it's possible our detectors may not be sensitive enough yet.

As I said if someone can actually send a cookie recipe faster than light, and someone else who is reputable can replicate it, that would be convincing. But all this hot air about how it's possible without any experiments showing it's been done are totally fruitless. Just do the experiment and prove it. That's the way science advances.

a reply to: corsair00

Simple in science you dont try to reinvent the wheel you try to replace it. If several have ran through it its a dead end. If i ran it by my colleague he would have done the same thing pointed me towards the same papers. Ill look them over like im going to do with these but it doesnt change the outcome. The only reason for me to review them at this point is to make sure my thoughts on it are still in line with current observations.In Science there is always things that come along that change the way we view the universe. But when it happens you wont get criticism you get corroboration. If someone puts out a paper and no one can dispute it than it requires further exploration. We have this problem alot with physics majors they go out and think they have a new idea only to find their idea isnt all that different from others. I didnt look but id guess this paper is by a recent graduate since it looks like he took an idea and tried to modify it to make it work. In my class he would have gotten an A and i would have had to review his paper were talking hours of work if not a weeks boolean math is not my strong suit. Id have told him why it was wrong but he would have still received an A. Why because it was interesting and it can be used for data encryption.

So when i said its interesting it is doesnt mean however its a method for FTL as i was reading it red lights went off immediately.

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

Thanks for the link and I will definitely check this out.

ftl communication is possible via quantum entanglement as I have shown in this thread.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

I'm not going to say FTL communication of useful information is impossible, but I am going to say "prove it" and nobody has, according to that paper and the paper by Ghirardi it references.

If FTL communication of useful information isn't impossible then it's possible and you agree with me. Why do you think FTL communication is possible? What is this based on?

I've laid out why FTL communication is possible in this thread and it has yet to be refuted. Here's 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?

What exactly do you mean by "prove it?"

I have shown that it's possible and you yourself say it's not impossible so what do you want proven? What do you mean by "prove it?"

Prove Hawking Radiation. Prove Parallel universes. Prove that you're not in a simulation. Prove that gravity is a fundamental force. Prove the big bang. Prove a singularity can occur. Prove that time exists.

The point is, I have shown in this thread that FTL communication is possible via entanglement through things like signal to noise ratios, information channels and breaking entanglement. You have said that FTL communication of useful information isn't impossible.

Nobody on this thread has yet to refute or show why what I'm saying is prohibited and can't occur. Don't you find that strange?

You would think I would 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?

Then someone would say:

That can't happen because of x,y and z. Instead there's a bunch of obfuscating and fishing about things that don't have anything to do with what I said.

Why is that?

originally posted by: neoholographic
If FTL communication of useful information isn't impossible then it's possible and you agree with me. Why do you think FTL communication is possible? What is this based on?

Learn how to use the quote function, that's what it's here for.

I'm merely echoing Dr Michio Kaku's answer to the question in the video you posted: "is FTL communication of useful information possible"?

His answer: "Probably not". It's a scientific answer meaning we have reasons to believe it's not possible. But by saying "probably not" instead of a flat "no", he leaves the door slightly open for the possibility, to not be closed-minded to new research which might reveal something we haven't thought of. But "probably not" doesn't mean that he, nor I, think it's possible.

Prove Hawking Radiation.

That is hypothetical also. The difference is, we don't yet have the technology to make the observations of a black hole we need to in order to test Hawking radiation. If it requires sending a probe to the black hole at the center of the milky way that would take 20,000+ years at nearly the speed of light.

On the other hand, the experiments you describe sound relatively simple in comparison with no such barriers to performing them, and none of them have sent useful information faster than the speed of light.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I know how to use the quote button and sometimes I use it and sometimes I don't. What are you, the ATS Gestapo? I've been posting on ATS for years this way and this is the first time someone has said anything.

You must realize how weak your position is

Like I said, I agree with Dr. Kaku when he said Probably no because information can't travel faster than light. I never said that it could because that would violate causality. I'm not talking about Kaku, I'm talking about what you said:

I'm not going to say FTL communication of useful information is impossible

Very specific and exactly what I have been saying. I have said that it possible for FTL communication of useful information via breaking entanglement, information channels and signal to noise ratios. I have listed published papers and experiments that support what I'm saying. I have asked a simple question and still no 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?

Why don't you think it's not impossible for FTL communication to send useful information? Is it because of quantum entanglement? Will you dodge this question to?

I told you why I think FTL communication of useful information isn't impossible.

The problem is, people have a knee jerk reaction when they hear "faster than light." They immediately jump to Einstein. Einstein was a great scientist but he was wrong about entanglement. So he's not infallible.

Science is full of people saying this or that can't happen and then it does. People said biology couldn't use quantum effects because the environment was too wet and noisy. That was shown not to be the case and you now have an emerging field of Quantum Biology. With Hawking Radiation, you illustrate my point.

The reason scientist say we don't have to worry about the LHC making black holes is because they will evaporate via Hawking Radiation. As you say though, it's hypothetical and hasn't been measured. It hasn't been measured but many scientist are sure it exists. This is exactly why I asked the question after explaining my position through published papers and experiments.

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 put that in bold and quotes if that makes you happy.

What prohibits this from occurring? Where's the opposing evidence? This is a place where people debate and that's what I'm doing.

The fact that there's all of this hand wringing and obfuscating instead of answering the question with opposing evidence that refutes what I'm saying shows why you and I agree.

I'm not going to say FTL communication of useful information is impossible

Neither am I for the reasons listed in this thread.

a reply to: neoholographic

Simple answer to your question is because you cant. everyone has tried to explain it all you'll get is encrypted data. I tried asking you several times to define how you believe this to be possible. Unfortunately I realize you have a quote but are clueless as to how to detect when entanglement is broken. You seem to be under the impression when entanglement is broken it's easy to detect. But problem is all we see is a random data set. We detect entanglement by comparing it to another data set.

You cant tell if photons are entangled but looking at a beam of light when we bring two beams of light together than we can see a pattern. So we need to split our laser send them to another location. OR we can send 1 laser and use the other as a key to unencrypt the one we sent. Either way we need to send data at light speed to assist us.

If you believe there's amother way I'm all ears but let me say tour question can't be answered because you have no setup to examine.

originally posted by: corsair00
a reply to: dragonridr

I thought the time you were going to spend was in talking about the specific experiment in somebody in optics science that is "better versed" on the subject?

You couldn't possibly have already talked to him and asked him to take a look at it, even though you did say that it was a unique experiment/idea. It seems to me that people are more often than not seeking to reinforce their established belief systems. If a theory has been officially debunked or refuted, that is one thing, but doing a 1 minute Google search to see that there happens to be an article that shows there was somebody else out there who was skeptical about something and may have poked a hole or two in some of the minor details... seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Anyways, as you were gentlemen. I am out of my league here. Just my 2 cents...

I just saw this post, great observations.

I have already accomplished communication with my future self.
Let me explain as it VERY, VERY complex.
First off, I write 2 notes to myself and lock them away for a year:
(A-note) Congratulations future Chris on losing weight.
(B-note) Why are you still fat?
In one year, future Chris will open the note that applies...in one future im fat and the other i look like brad pitt.
There, i solved everyones problem and didnt step on Einstein's feet...
-Christosterone

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.

I answered your question directly. I will repeat: Yes of course it's allowed. No it doesn't give FTL communication.

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.

Apologies, I meant 'useful' in the sense of making FTL communication channel.

Useful for quantum cryptography or secure channels (where any break-in could be detected), yes it could be useful and is why basic and applied research efforts is substantial.

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.

How would Alice know, using information only available to Alice that her "signal to noise ratio" is lower on channels 2 and 4?

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.

I answered your question. The knowledge of whether a channel was entangled or not can only be determined by measuring a significant number of spins or polarization or any other locally observable physical quantity, and bringing the records (encoded classically after observation) of both ends to a single location and performing the computation.

To be specific, there exists no local measurement device which is an "entanglement detector". Entanglement or lack thereof is not a physical observable operator of the wavefunction on one end (almost by definition!).

This is why I previously asked you what YOU believed to be the mechanism to compute entanglement.

Entanglement or no-entanglement can definitely be encoded into channels and data collected with a statistically significant quantity of many locally observable measurements, but can only be decoded with results of both ends known at one place simultaneously.

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.

If you think quantum mechanics is gobbledy-gook.

I answered your question directly and specifically with examples.

a reply to: mbkennel

I've been trying to let him discover the answer on his own. But realized that wasn't going to happen so I told him and he got hostile. We've done everything at this point but run the experiment in his living room. He believes he's solved the problem and unwilling to listen to u s that others thought the same way. And they took the time to run experiments and find out what hapens. He's under the belief that science is somehow trying to hide what would be the technical advancement of the past 50 years.

Whoever figured out FTL communication would be right up there with the first guy that figured out how to travel faster than light or time travel.That person would instantly surpass Einstein as the most influencial scientist ever.

a reply to: mbkennel

Wrong on every level.

First you said:

The knowledge of whether a channel was entangled or not can only be determined by measuring a significant number of spins or polarization or any other locally observable physical quantity

Who said a channel was entangled??

Again, this makes zero sense and has nothing to do with what I'm saying. The channel isn't entangled, the photons are entangled. The channel allows Alice to communicate with Bob. When the particles are entangled and highly correlated there's a high signal to noise ratio. When you break entanglement, you introduce more noise to the channel and you have a weaker signal to noise ratio. This is exactly why what you're saying isn't making any sense.

If Alice and Bob were trying to check for correlations between entangled particles, then they would have to check for spin up/spin down and see if their particles are still highly correlated.

I'm not talking about that. All you have to do is read my post to see this.

Alice and Bob don't have to check for correlations. Their checking for signal to noise ratios in the information channels. Any Engineer worth his salt now knows it's a matter of error correction and not checking for correlation between particles. It's not about spin up/spin down but about signal to noise ratio in an information channel.

Say you have a micro ring resonator on a silicon chip producing entangled particles. There's no need to check for correlation. You just need to check for signal to noise ratios in the information channel.

Say you have two computers, Computer A and Computer B. When Entangled particles are produced, one goes to A and the other goes to B. The person at computer A and computer B isn't checking for spin. You're doing error correction and you're seeing how many cycles of entangled particles can be produced before entanglement breaking occurs in a channel. Also, does this increase with distance.

Again, you're not debating against anything I have said. You're not detecting entanglement based on measuring the systems spin state but on signal to noise in the channel.

So at the end of the day, you didn't answer anything. You said this:

Entanglement or no-entanglement can definitely be encoded into channels and data collected with a statistically significant quantity of many locally observable measurements, but can only be decoded with results of both ends known at one place simultaneously.

Complete gobbledy gook.

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ENCODING ENTANGLEMENT-NO ENTANGLEMENT?

This is just silly. All particles in the network are entangled. When entanglement is broken, you then have a weaker signal to noise ratio in the channel. Again, you're not debating anything that I actually said. So the question still stands:

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?

a reply to: neoholographic

What do you believe signal to noise is?? We have our laser we send it to two locations so explain where we get this signal to noise ratio and hiw we can tell what is the noise in our beam of light??

a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you're not checking for spin.

Say you have two entangled pulses of light containing entangled photons. You send one to Alice and one to Bob. When the photons are highly correlated, they will have a high signal to noise ratio and will have a strong correlation between arrival time and frequency.

You have a second channel. The same thing applies.

A third channel, the same thing applies.

Bob is now looking at these three channels who each have a high signal to noise ratio and are strongly correlated between arrival time and frequency. This can be determined beforehand because you're not sending information from Alice to Bob based on spin.

So Alice wants to change Bob's middle channel to an 0. She breaks entanglement in the second channel and the second channel will have a weaker signal to noise ratio and it's arrival time and frequency will be different than the strongly correlated signals in channels 1 and 3.

Now it simply becomes an engineering problem.

Let's look at this from a classical point of view.

Let's say Alice and Bob work at a baseball field. They line up 6 baseball players that's playing catch and they're separated by a barrier, so they can't see each other. The baseball can be either black or white. This doesn't matter to Bob and Alice when it comes to communicating though.

Bob and Alice determine that there's a high signal to noise ratio because the baseball's are going back and forth between players at a frequency and arrival time that shows they're strongly correlated.

So on Bob's side, there's 3 players catching the ball at a frequency and arrival time that shows high correlation. On Alice side, there's 3 players catching the ball at a frequency and arrival time that shows they're strongly correlated.

So now, Alice wants to send Bob a message and she can send Bob a different message by breaking the entanglement in 1 of the 3 channels.

She breaks entanglement in channel 1, lunch is at 12:00.

She breaks entanglement in channel 2, lunch is at 12:30.

She breaks entanglement in channel 3, lunch is at 1:00.

Alice can send this message to Bob faster than light.

Let's extrapolate it even further. Let's say Alice and her baseball players are on the sun and Bob and his players are on earth. The sun goes dark.

The people on earth will still get sunshine for 8 minutes on earth. Alice can tell Bob instantly and faster than light can reach the rest of the people on earth. So 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?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you're not checking for spin.

Say you have two entangled pulses of light containing entangled photons. You send one to Alice and one to Bob. When the photons are highly correlated, they will have a high signal to noise ratio and will have a strong correlation between arrival time and frequency.

Define specifically how to measure "signal to noise ratio" in this setup using information only available on one side, and specifically what you mean by entanglement breaking reducing signal to noise ratio. The details matter.

"Strong correlation between arrival time and frequency"? What is the experimental setup in this case?