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.

 

Quantum teleportation achieved over ten miles of free space

page: 9
85
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There's nothing in this experiment or in foreseeable technology development to suggest that could happen. It's complete speculation like the warp drive is, in that both assume technologies we know nothing about, like whether they even exist or not, but maybe you already know that which is why you say "With much more sophisticated technology".

Yeah, if the detractors out there look at my posts more closely, they'll see that I have no misunderstanding of our present state of technology in this area... We're still playing in a tidal pool when there's an ocean that needs crossing.

That's why I've said, here and elsewhere, that our understanding and technology simply do not permit the sort of "teleportation" we're discussing. And it's not really teleportation, anyway.

Yet, I have a very good nose for fringe physics that will blossom into the commonplace technology of tomorrow. I can see where this is going.

— Doc Velocity




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
but maybe you already know that which is why you say "With much more sophisticated technology".

Yeah, if the detractors out there look at my posts more closely, they'll see that I have no misunderstanding of our present state of technology in this area..

Agreed.

But your choice of words does raise my eyebrows a bit.

For example, back before we had digital cameras, it would seem appropriate to say something like "With much more sophisticated technology" someday we might be able to take pictures digitally, using no film. And in fact the CCD technology is much more sophisticated, but it's an extension of transistor technology, and didn't require any fundamental re-writing of the laws of physics to implement.

So to say that "with much more sophisticated technology" we can transmit information faster than the speed of light just doesn't seem comparable to the digital camera example. I can't say your statement is technically wrong, but I would call it an "understatement". I think a better choice of words would be:

"with a completely new technology and a major revision to the laws of physics as we know them, someday we might be able to communicate faster than light." That sounds more accurate to me.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
We (myself included) need to learn to stop getting excited about these so-called "discoveries". Remember this is the OLD HAT of the military. They have things we can't possibly imagine.
Ever hear about the jump-gate to Mars? Nothing would surprise me!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
"with a completely new technology and a major revision to the laws of physics as we know them, someday we might be able to communicate faster than light." That sounds more accurate to me.


It almost seem like physics was meant to have a limitation. It's hard enough to believe that all the best and brightest minds in the world allow themselves to contradict themselves when it is about physicists vs quantum mechanics. Many seem to try to avoid the contradictions, ignore any improvement to current physical models, and just call topics like this "new age" as they mock the scientists. Physics doesn't evolve under those conditions.

When the science involves things that have no physical form, like quantum entanglement with no real physical particle being sent/received, then it simply is beyond physics. Quantum mechanics goes beyond physics.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Again, we aren't talking about "faster than light"... There is no physical dynamism of the type associated with mass and velocity and distance. It's going to turn out to be something very, very simple that we haven't been able to access with our technology thus far — it's going to be a very subtle kind of interdimensional singularity into which we venture..

There's reason to think that humans have been tampering with the exact same forces and particles throughout our history as a species. In the past we called it "magic"... And, yes, I think that humans have been (perhaps inadvertently) dabbling in these interdimensional singularities all along, by virtue of the fact that our brains seem to function in an interdimensional fashion, like quantum antennae.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 5/22/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Here is a thought;

I believe that space itself is quantized... if that is the case what would be the result of 'entangling' spatial quanta? I think it may be how a true stargate style teleporter may be created. If the first spatial quantum became 'occupied' the second would also... the result would be that the inhabiting particle would be in two places at once until it left the region of entanglement, at which point it would be at the other end of the gate.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


When you say that all forces are in fact one force you are simply stating the credo of those searching for Grand Unification Theories.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
It would start out just like current transmission because you have to get the entagled photon to the different spots. But once all of the connection points are made, it would revolutionize communication.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by Harte
That is simply a fact and there's simply no way around that fact.
Harte


I always cringe when somebody talks in absolute terms. History has shown that "facts" are highly subjective and there are no limits to man's inventiveness. If we believed your statement we'd have stopped searching at the atom level, because the Greeks said so ...

Okay, then I'll rephrase.

"That is simply a fact of quantum mechanics and there's simply no way in quantum mechanics around that fact."

See, the problem is the very branch of physics that allows and even predicted quantum entanglement and its consequences is the same branch of physics that won't allow you to use it for communication.

FTL communication may one day be a reality, but it won't use quantum entanglement, this I can guarantee.

Harte



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I remember the moment that in a science program the CD was introduced. It was still in a very early prototype stage and it sounded like sci-fi.....as with many other electronic devices.

Our children (and the young amoung us) will experiance some cool stuff in their lives.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


There have been many people who grandly proclaimed the impossibility of this or that... flight, communication over wires, travel over 60 miles per hour.... (it was thought we would suffocate at such a great speed LOL)

These people have been relegated to history's heap o' hiny holes...

I feel sure that before the next decade is done, FTL communication, and even FTL wireless power transmission will be reality... even if only in labratories.

Call this my hopeful heart if you will.
Given time, there is no thing which is beyond the reach of Man.

Be well!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FileZero
reply to post by Harte
 


There have been many people who grandly proclaimed the impossibility of this or that... flight, communication over wires, travel over 60 miles per hour.... (it was thought we would suffocate at such a great speed LOL)

These people have been relegated to history's heap o' hiny holes...

I feel sure that before the next decade is done, FTL communication, and even FTL wireless power transmission will be reality... even if only in labratories.

Call this my hopeful heart if you will.
Given time, there is no thing which is beyond the reach of Man.

Be well!

Whatever


I guess no matter what I say, people here are going to misrepresent it as me saying a certain thing is "impossible."

BTW, there are impossibilities in the world, you know, just as there are possibilities.

For the record, quantum mechanics rules out the possibility of using quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication.

Nothing, so far, has ruled out using your Aunt Sally's girdle for instantaneous communication.

So, what we now need is a complete theory on the girdles of women named Sallly who have sisters with children.

Harte



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
For the record, quantum mechanics rules out the possibility of using quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication.


In the common sense of how quantum mechanics is introduced in physics classes, I'm sure we can agree with that statement.

However, it would be more true to say that quantum physics rules out the possibility of being able to use quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication.

Most engineers and physicist don't tend to make such distinction, and they generally lump everything of quantum physics into quantum mechanics. This confuses some issues, as we see in this thread.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 




Great... Now if they can just keep it away from the military.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius

There we have another very serious misconception. Physics is not about explaining what things are. Physics is about finding mathematical models to describe certain natural phenomena.

If a physicist says that the light is a wave. He means that an effect called 'Light' can be described using a mathematical model called 'Wave'. This model might have some constraints, being applicable to only certain 'Light' properties. But it is still valid.

Calling this nonsense is like telling a mathematician that imaginary numbers are nonsense. Physics is all about describing the world using math - not more and not less.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by moebius]


Where is all the math in this thread? I see a lot of irrational debate.

The model is not valid if it does not convey EXACTLY what is happening.

For example, 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. You could say, "Jan has an apple and Bob has an apple. Jan gives Bob her apple. How many apples does Jan have? Bob?" Jan has no apples. Bob has 2 apples.

Let me show you how physicists describe light, metaphorically :

"Jan has an apple and Bob has a tomato. Jan gives Bob her apple. How many apples does Jan have? Bob?" Jan has no apples. Bob has 2 because we don't know what a tomato is - but what we do know is that it is shaped similar to an apple and it is close to the same color and it has seeds inside of it. So, it's really darn close, and that's just all we know... so we'll call it an apple.

Except...a tomato is not an apple.

And neither is light a particle. Neither is it a wave.

It has properties similar to both particles and waves. Now, tell me. What would a few interacting waves might look like if they were solid? Might they appear... as a ROPE?

Occam's Razor. Light must be BOTH particles and waves if it is functioning as such. Who in their right mind would believe that light must be one or the other if it exhibits both qualities? People who have spent their lives not thinking outside of the thought processes of their mythematical gods.

Now, if you want to talk math, then do the numbers.

But if you want to talk reality, which is -NOT- math, then focus on the topic at hand.

How can you send information from one atom to another atom ten miles away if the two aren't LITERALLY connected? Of course, the information is going to be jumbled if the connection between the two isn't tight... meaning, you can send information more perfectly through taut copper TWINE because it's more perfectly solid. But, what happens when that copper wire gets cut? Aw. Looks like most of the information isn't making it past that cut.

Think of a guitar string. The tighter it becomes, the more pronounced the ring and hum generated from it and the less the twang and bounce and snap. The ring and hum is caused by the rapid vibration of the string releasing energy in the form of a more sharp sound due to the need for the string to release that energy because of the energy put into it with the sharp pluck of it by the finger which is connected to the human that likes to eat and drink a lot which gives the human energy - and that energy just passed through the string and it couldn't absorb it all so it translated it. But, while that's all happening, that information from the pluck ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY sends that information throughout the string to form the harmonic waves which form the desired note which we set out to create! And a guitar string isn't even a torsion rope and it generates that kind of response. If you were to apply that same amount of tension to a guitar string that was ten miles long, You can bet that the information would be received nearly instantaneously on the other end - If a person was standing at the end of each string, each person would hear the same sound at practically the same time... which is very interesting considering sound should make it from the plucked side to the non-plucked side in a matter of seconds - but not instantaneously. But how is this?

The PLUCK does not create the sound - the energy that already exists within the tension of the string combined with the catalyst energy which plucked the string set off a lightning speed reaction which caused the string to immediately harmonize with itself. The sound comes from the entire length of the string, so the sound doesn't have to travel the whole distance because the sound is also created at the opposite end at the same time the pluck occurs!!

Nothing MOVES faster than light stand alone, for sure. But we CAN send information more quickly than light moves because we can create a channel through which the information is generated at essentially the same time in a different part of space.

However, the speed of light IS directly related. We have to realize that light is not actually what we see. Light is actually light energy which is actually an extremely large number of -BRIGHT- explosions (not HOT explosions) occuring from a specific source. Now, this -bright- explosion creates a lightning-fast chain reaction which plucks all the seemingly-invisible torsion ropes which connect every atom in a particular direction and causes them to translate this information of the -bright- explosion. Well, we cannot EASILY see the translation come off of a guitar string, but we hear it. Well, we CAN see the translation come off of the torsion ropes which connect atoms, we just can't EASILY hear it.

Flicking a switch in a room which allows electricity to reach a bulb which translates the electricity to a bright explosion through a filament which translates the bright explosion through all the atoms in any particular direction to recreate the original bright explosion is the same thing as plucking a guitar string to hear sound resonating from it - see the sound that you hear is not all different sound, we know that. IT's one tiny bit of sound recreated throughout the entire string. It's all COPIED sound from the very first original pluck which created the first first harmonic which multiplied itself so quickly that to our ears it sounds practically INSTANTANEOUS.

I don't know how much more clear I can make something that seems so simple to me. Enjoy y'all.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Harte
For the record, quantum mechanics rules out the possibility of using quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication.


In the common sense of how quantum mechanics is introduced in physics classes, I'm sure we can agree with that statement.

However, it would be more true to say that quantum physics rules out the possibility of being able to use quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication.

Okay.

And if you need further detail, it would be even more correct to say that Quantum Chromodynamics rules out the possibility of being able to use quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication.

That is, unless there has been even further refinement of the theory since I last checked.

Harte



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FileZero
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


When you say that all forces are in fact one force you are simply stating the credo of those searching for Grand Unification Theories.


Not at all.

I'm saying I can EXPLAIN all forces with derivations of Gravity. Most of the nuclear forces have to do with geometry. Magnetism is when it forms a consistent pattern. Electromagnetic radiation is "Feedback" on Gravity.

"graviton's" are never going to be "found" -- basically, they move FROM matter to SPACE/Time -- Gravity is ACTUALLY space and time bleeding into this Universe.

Light, or photons, are FIELDS with a "pole" -- and this is mistakenly called "entangled photons" -- the energy field has two points where it can collapse. The whole phenomena of "quantum packets" has to do with fields exchanging energy only at their peaks. It's a lot easier to draw a picture of how it all fits together than to explain it.

Negative and positive electrical forces are "future and past" space/time potentials -- it's really the relative difference between the two which is ALWAYS going to be equal -- and this connects with Einstein's relatively, in that the Universe (space/time) contracts or expands. When you move a particle close to the speed of light -- it "expands" which is really feedback on Gravity coming from the particle. It's time-debt means it is staying the same size, while all the matter around it continues to shrink (or space grows), which also connects in correctly with why the "Hubble Constant" is expanding at a greater rate. Seen from this perspective, Electrical potential can be predicted like Kinetic energy on a slope -- as you move forward in time, you move down the slope. The energy keeps getting lower -- but "relative" to your position in time, the PAST (positive energy) is the same.

From this we get the tri-nary nature of the Universe, which reflects the electrical structure (but NOT an electric Universe because SPACE does not conduct). Time is really an energy potential at a right-angle to gravity flow, and EM fields are at a right angle to that -- but in the lower dimension space. So the structure is 4 dimensions (we witness), 4 dimensional "space/time" that we only interact with through gravity, and a 4 dimensional "upper space" which interacts with the lower space -- we only see the interaction as a composite and thus all these fields LOOK like they behave as particles. Position in space/time is a relation to time-potential energy, and the distance between the upper and lower dimensions of each "particle" really folded space of the two branes fluctuation back and forth.

I'm also excited that some recent super nova may have disproved Dark Matter -- which I was predicting DOES NOT exist -- at least not how they describe it. Gravity can bleed through from non-local points, or it could be anti-matter, which should have a negative gravity.


Anyway, it seems to all come together pretty nicely, and my predictions seem to tightly correspond to recent discoveries -- until I find something better, it seems to fit everything I've thrown at it. It means that force-fields and instantaneous travel are possible -- but time travel is NOT. Time Travel is the only thing that I think is NOT possible. Invisibility is closely related to controlling gravity as well as moving solids through each other -- it has to do with WHY things are solid.... sorry, that would take a while to explain. But "solids" are not really very dense at all, and only their distortion of space itself might be why objects don't pass through each other.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FileZero
Here is a thought;

I believe that space itself is quantized... if that is the case what would be the result of 'entangling' spatial quanta? I think it may be how a true stargate style teleporter may be created. If the first spatial quantum became 'occupied' the second would also... the result would be that the inhabiting particle would be in two places at once until it left the region of entanglement, at which point it would be at the other end of the gate.


I have a hard time RULING that theory out myself. We could look at matter this way; Say the universe is almost perfectly dense. SPACE is nothing but solid, tightly-packed tiny balls. The FLAW -- or the emptiness in this superdense structure, is what we experience as matter. Seen from this perspective, light is kinetic energy passing through these small tiny balls, and we see "quanta" or packets, because space itself is granular.

When we try and find the smallest particle, or "witness" a photon, it is infinitely reducible, because we are LOOKING for the spaces between space itself.

The concept of the AETHER -- or some medium like water, was in vogue before Einstein. The problem modern physics has, is explaining HOW WAVES AND PARTICLES TRANSMIT. Modern physics always needs another particle -- which, as long as you aren't talking about ElectroMagnetism -- works fine. But when you get to "light waves" WHAT is the wave traveling on? So, for physics professors, it is a particle, until of course it "acts" like a wave.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Sorry to step in here without having read the entire 9 pages already posted. Quantum entanglement came up as a tangent from the discussion, "Speed of gravity: Why Einstein was wrong", over in ATS's Space Exploration section. Before being advised that I was going off topic, I made comments along the following lines.

1) FTL communication does not imply a paradox, and it is consistent with relativity provided you acknowledge the existence of an ether which is a preferred reference frame.

2) Relativity requires that the speed of light be the same in every direction in every reference frame, and that implies that all other speeds (including infinite speed) are not the same in every direction, except in the reference frame of the ether.

3) That which is simultaneous in the reference frame of the ether is not simultaneouse in any other reference frame. Einstein's time formula contains an "x" term for location in the direction of relative motion.

t' = γ(t-(vx/c²))

4) The blueshift of the CMB in the direction of Virgo suggests that our solar system is moving toward Virgo relative to the ether at about 627 km/s. This translates to a gamma of 1.0000022. Taking Virgo as the +x direction, the x-axis dependency of our clocks is about -7 nanosec/km. In other words, Earth clocks closer to Virgo show earlier times, relative to the ether-frame clocks.

5) If the recent quantum entanglement experiment sent data instantaneously (relative to the ether), and if the message was received at a point 10 km closer to Virgo, it would be received about 70 nanosec before it was sent (according to Earth based clocks).

6) Incidentally, this proves the existence of the ether as a preferred reference frame. It is debatable whether it proves that the ether is a substantive medium.

7) Had it been sent in the opposite direction, it would have been received about 70 nanosec after it was sent. That is why FTL communication does not imply paradoxes. There is no way to sent yourself a message from your own future.

_________________________________________


A few more comments:

As I understand it, the pair of entangled photons must originate from a point of origin closer to the sender than to the receiver. The point of origin is x = 0, the sender is at x = -s, and the receiver is at +r, and s < r. The signal goes instantaneously (relative to the ether) from -s to +s, and completes the trip to +r at the speed of light.

For an outpost 10 ly away in the direction of Virgo to enjoy this type of 2-way communication with Earth, there would have to be two sources of entangled photon pairs. Once source would be slightly closer to Earth, the other source closer to the outpost. Messages from Earth would arrive at the outpost about 2 hours before they are sent. Messages from the outpost would arrive about at Earth about 2 hours after they are sent. A 2-way conversation could proceed with no discernable propagation delay.

However, I strongly suspect that quantum entanglement has a finite propagation speed, which is probably the same as the speed of gravity force (not the same as gravity waves). Though I disagree with most of Tom Van Flandern's wacky ideas, I do think he was right about the speed of gravity. He calculated it to be greater than 20 billion c. This would introduce a propagation delay less than 1.6 millisec/light year. So at 10 light years, the delay would be a mere 16 millisec.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Hey sorry if I upset you. I guess I never took into account you might be upset by others replies. It was not my intent.

I simply think that to say something is impossible is a mistake. If humanity had taken such a view long ago, we'd still be living in caves.

At any rate, again, no intent to aggravate!

Have a great day.



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join