Is faster than light communication possible? Yes

I wouldn't be surprised if FTL communication doesn't already exist. FTL Communications exists because of entanglement and non locality. I will explain this using a hypothetical Quantum Communication Device (QCD).

Let's start with an entangled particle pair. It will be either spin up/spin down or spin down/spin up when measured. You then have your hypothetical QCD with one on Earth and one on Mars. It takes light time to travel from Earth to Mars. This type of communication happens instantly or close to it. Information doesn't need to travel from point A to point B.

In this device spin up/spin down = 1 and spin down/spin up = 0. So 10 = A. So when you press a button on the QCD on Earth you will instantly send an A to the QCD on Mars. This will be faster than light because the A doesn't need to travel from A to B. Theoretically, this will work if a QCD was on Earth and the other one was on Kepler - 22b 600 light years away.

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of communication is already available with Governments.I saw a couple of articles that might point to this.

First, this article is called:

Chinese physicists measure speed of Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’: At least 10,000 times faster than light

The article ends this way:

We’re now at the point where a quantum internet — either using conventional fiber or satellites — is starting to become feasible. If it turns out that we actually can communicate data via quantum entanglement, we now know that it’ll be much faster than the speed of light.

www.extremetech.com... ight

Another article is called:

Government lab reveals it’s had fledgling quantum internet operating for two years

www.extremetech.com...

At the end of the day, you're starting to hear more and more about this Quantum Internet and of course it will be available to Governments long before it gets to the public.

This will also allow information to be sent back in time from the time the QCD is invented. Say it's invented in 2015 in 2020 you could send info back to 2015. It will not violate causality because of Parallel Universes.

Say you send back the lotto numbers for December 3rd 2016 from 2020. Your past self would become rich but you wouldn't experience this because you have already experience December 3rd 2016. Entropy locks you into your timeline.

Maybe other civilizations and are future selves already communicate this way. There will probably be some sort of security that monitors information coming from the future.

reply to post by neoholographic


Well Stephen Hawking believes that you can get nothing from nothing, so yeah.

Why not?

Doesn't QE still need slower than light connection for error correction?

The Gov. has been using QE for communication for several years now, but it isn't really any faster than a fiber connection.

The primary reason for QE is for encryption and intrusion detection, not the speed factor.

Its like if 1 can visualize a mega galaxy structure...

That @ its top sits 2 what would be classified as large multi colored stars, between them a energized ARC beneath them sit mada of what in human eye description would look like dark cloud like tadpole form to angle form traverses.. pilots indoctrinated unbalanced... data gathered upon indoctrinated encounters contacts and so where they been data shared (fly paper). mada look like in human description spiral galaxy except now exchange what would be the stars in spiral for dark appearance if not shiny REFLECTING mada... inner to outer tadpole to angle shapes others ?? shapes forms (no share) sitting or being traversed by entire structure move sources. Below mada sits a Crystalline inverter transparent cone... hollowed. But the crystals from closer observe look as containments for various.. energies. Surrounding exterior is Serpents/Dragon 1 red diamond shaped EYE its green cloudish plasma GLOW ....................................................... absorbs unbalanced ENERGIES.

And after visualizing being able to transmit. HMM it would seem if there was say an image of the local SOL system and many looked at it and in their minds could visualize and then manifest perhaps then they COULD communicate off of visual interest connections if not e-sigs... So they look @ say map and concentrate and send there. seems possible ftl comms can..

NAMASTE*******

reply to post by neoholographic


The way I get it, its like this: You two magic black boxes, with a coin inside each. You don't know whether its heads or tails, all you know is that the coin state is the same in both. (they are entangled) That means if earth opens the box and finds tails, so will mars. Or same with heads. And you can open the boxes as many times as you like, and this will always be true, though sometimes both will see heads, sometimes tails. However if earth reaches in to the box and tries to set the coin themselves into some state, to send a signal to mars, you break the entanglement... They will no longer be tied together. So you can't use it for communication,unless its something really clever I've never heard of.

Originally posted by neoholographic
You then have your hypothetical QCD with one on Earth and one on Mars.

And thats the sticking point.
You might have an entangled pair, but you still have to get one to each planet before you can "trigger" the result.

The quantum unravelling travels at infinity speed, but you cant send a message that fast because you need the time to set it up in the first place.

They really need to put this theory to the test. Seen it a few times on the tube...er, panel...what's the name now for TV other than TV? Anyways, the nerds theorized that all things are connected in a way. Easy to replicate in a lab setting IMO. They need to send a probe out with both means of comm, the regular and the other. Have the probe send info back simultaneously with both and see what we get.

A tad off topic - seen a test done back in the late 80s/early 90s with human cells. They would hook some cells up to an EKG type reader, monitor the readings...then send the person who gave the cells into the bad part of town. Whenever the person got into a 'situation' the readings on the cells would spike.

Maybe the sub particles communicate on a sub-space realm.

That or we are living in a computer simulation and everything is a hologram.

There is no magical way for particles to interact with each other without moving. Nothing moving faster than photons in a vacuum has been observed. Any interpretation of entanglement which implies that two particles can communicate without some form of physical motion is a joke and should be ignored.

So, no, not possible via any method you have mentioned.

You should also note that 'entanglement' is used for different physical phenomena (electron entanglement and optical photon entanglement are dissimilar behaviourally).

The link you have posted is using polarized entangled light photons - there are major theoretical issues with the interpretation of this type of entanglement. They claim to have 'strictly closed the locality loopholes', but it is much more likely that they have just hidden them elsewhere in the construction of the experiment/equations. This is PR fodder, not real physics.

reply to post by yampa


What??? This has nothing to do with what I posted.

First, this isn't the first time that entanglement has been measured at 10,000 times the speed of light. The same result occurred in August 2008. There are no theoretical issues. This is entanglement and it has been tested again and again.,

It's pretty simple and like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already in use.

Let's go with the Alice and Bob examples. Say Alice is in New York with a Quantum Communication Device and Bob is in New Jersey with a QCD. You can do this with 3 channels. This is because at least one bit of information is going from Alice to Bob faster than light.

You have a entangled particle pair in one channel that is spin up/spin down = 1 and spin down/spin up = 0. So 10 =D.

In the second channel, you have another entangled pair. Spin up/spin down = 0 and spin down/spin up = 1. So 01 = A.

In the 3rd channel, you have another entangled pair. Spin up/spin down = 1 and spin down/spin up = 1. So 11 = N.

So 100111 = DAN.

So when Alice hits the buttons for the 3 channels on her device, it will instantly or close to instantly send the word DAN to Bob in Jersey.

So yes, FTL communication can occur through entanglement.

Originally posted by neoholographic
You have a entangled particle pair in one channel that is spin up/spin down = 1 and spin down/spin up = 0. So 10 =D.

But surely you dont actually know the state until you check.
Do you know of any way to *in advance* be sure of the state of entanglement before you decide to "send the message"? If not, then you're sending a random number.

But of course you still need to physically transport those particle from one place to another in advance.
So... you have a slow way of communicating random noise.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by yampa

 

What??? This has nothing to do with what I posted.

First, this isn't the first time that entanglement has been measured at 10,000 times the speed of light. The same result occurred in August 2008. There are no theoretical issues. This is entanglement and it has been tested again and again.,

It's pretty simple and like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already in use.

Let's go with the Alice and Bob examples. Say Alice is in New York with a Quantum Communication Device and Bob is in New Jersey with a QCD. You can do this with 3 channels. This is because at least one bit of information is going from Alice to Bob faster than light.

So yes, FTL communication can occur through entanglement.

The article you have linked to about the 'Quantum Internet' is about cryptography. It has nothing to do with faster than light communication. So half your OP has nothing to do with your topic either..

The arxiv.org... article from University of Science and Technology of China, Shanghai is using an interpretation of photonic entanglement which is highly debatable. It's not only debatable in terms of experiment construction (the assumptions imported to the experiments are likely wrong) - the conclusions also completely defy Relativity, which tells us (and is accepted proven) that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

No particles are communicating with, altering the path of, influencing or remotely perturbing any other particle without some physical carrier exchange taking place. No physical carrier, no particle or wave, has ever been recorded going faster than the speed of light.

I think you should stop getting your science from ExtremeTech tbh.. it is surely junk.

reply to post by alfa1


This is the key misunderstanding.

You will not be sending a random number, because the entangled pair can only be in 2 states. Spin up/spin down or spin down/spin up.

If you assign a bit of information for every probable state of the entangled particle, then you're not sending a random bit of information. Bob doesn't need to know the state of the particle before it's sent because no matter what state it's in it's sending 1 bit of information.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by alfa1

 

This is the key misunderstanding.

You will not be sending a random number, because the entangled pair can only be in 2 states. Spin up/spin down or spin down/spin up.

If you assign a bit of information for every probable state of the entangled particle, then you're not sending a random bit of information. Bob doesn't need to know the state of the particle before it's sent because no matter what state it's in it's sending 1 bit of information.

What do you think about the way the Chinese scientists have managed to close locality loopholes in their experiment? Do you agree with their methods? How do you think this differs from previous experiments?

reply to post by yampa


First, you should of read what I posted. I talked about the Quantum Internet as a way to show more people are talking about things like a quantum internet. In fact I said:

At the end of the day, you're starting to hear more and more about this Quantum Internet and of course it will be available to Governments long before it gets to the public.

Secondly, you're the only one that's saying it's debatable. Is this in some peer reviewed website or academic paper? Like I said, the experiment came up with the same result that occurred in 2008 and was published in Nature.

There isn't any issue about photonic entanglement except in your mind. It's funny that you're coming up with this nonsense because I recently read a published paper about photonic entanglement.

Quantum Storage of Photonic Entanglement in a Crystal

Entanglement is the fundamental characteristic of quantum physics. Large experimental efforts are devoted to harness entanglement between various physical systems. In particular, entanglement between light and material systems is interesting due to their prospective roles as "flying" and stationary qubits in future quantum information technologies, such as quantum repeaters and quantum networks. Here we report the first demonstration of entanglement between a photon at telecommunication wavelength and a single collective atomic excitation stored in a crystal. One photon from an energy-time entangled pair is mapped onto a crystal and then released into a well-defined spatial mode after a predetermined storage time. The other photon is at telecommunication wavelength and is sent directly through a 50 m fiber link to an analyzer. Successful transfer of entanglement to the crystal and back is proven by a violation of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality by almost three standard deviations (S=2.64+/-0.23). These results represent an important step towards quantum communication technologies based on solid-state devices. In particular, our resources pave the way for building efficient multiplexed quantum repeaters for long-distance quantum networks.

arxiv.org...

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with the experiment and the same results were obtained in 2008.

Now researchers at the University of Geneva have split up entangled pairs of photons, or packets of light, and sent them over two optical fibre cables to stations at two Swiss villages some 11 miles (18 kilometers) apart from each other. The stations confirmed that each pair of photons had remained entangled and by analyzing one, scientists could predict aspects of its partner, reported LiveScience.

Measurements taken from the separate sites showed that for any hidden signal to travel from one station to the other in just 300 trillionths of a second — the rapidity at which the stations could accurately detect the photons — any such x-factor force had to travel at least 10,000 times the speed of light, the report claimed.

Nicolas Gisin, a physicist at the University of Geneva told LiveScience that, if there is such a force, it clearly renders implausible the classical physics law that nothing can travel faster than light and added: "what's fascinating here is that we see that nature is able to produce events that can manifest themselves at several locations."

"In a sense, these instantaneous events "seem to happen from outside space-time, in that it's not a story you can tell within space-time," Gisin told LiveScience. "This is something that an entire community of scientists is already studying very intensively."

Gisin and his colleagues have published their findings in the August 14 issue of the journal Nature.

www.thetechherald.com...

Like I said, the same results were found and published in 2008.

Originally posted by neoholographic
This is the key misunderstanding.

You will not be sending a random number, because the entangled pair can only be in 2 states. Spin up/spin down or spin down/spin up.

If you assign a bit of information for every probable state of the entangled particle, then you're not sending a random bit of information. Bob doesn't need to know the state of the particle before it's sent because no matter what state it's in it's sending 1 bit of information.

I don't understand your reply,

1 0 and 1 are numbers also which could be used to represent the two states, so saying there are two states doesn't invalidate alfa1's argument.

2. Sending random information is not really communicating, is it? You don't see the difference?

3. You didn't even address the point that those entangled particles must travel slower than the speed of light to get to their respective locations.

Alfa1 made some good points and I think you're batting zero for three in rebutting them.

Originally posted by neoholographic

It's funny that you're coming up with this nonsense because I recently read a published paper about photonic entanglement.

Quantum Storage of Photonic Entanglement in a Crystal

arxiv.org...

That paper doesn't say anything about the speed of light. You will notice that is the case with most published papers about quantum photon entanglement. Most papers will completely fail to mention it.

Isn't it strange how, when the CERN FTL neutrino experiment broke, it was the biggest story in the world for weeks? (until it was shown the scientists had made measurement/math mistakes). Yet photonic quantum engineers break the speed of light every day! And no one pays any attention! Well, no, it's not strange because the real researchers know that isn't really happening.

The physical properties of a photon (spin states, whatever) that are being measured in photon experiments and equipments (the type shown in the government quantum internet) - whatever their application in cryptography, quantum computing algorithms etc, none of that is taking place above the speed of light.

Originally posted by neoholographic

Secondly, you're the only one that's saying it's debatable. Is this in some peer reviewed website or academic paper? Like I said, the experiment came up with the same result that occurred in 2008 and was published in Nature.

There isn't any issue about photonic entanglement except in your mind.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with the experiment and the same results were obtained in 2008.

www.thetechherald.com...

The debate about the validity of these photon experiments is not something I have invented. They mention the debate in the introduction! I asked y'all about the locality loopholes and you did not answer?

I would argue further about the overall physical applicability of Bell's theorem, but either way, no one serious (aside from headline hunting PR departments and magazines) yet believes in proven FTL communication.

We can see that debate here:

physics.stackexchange.com...

you can see a reply there by Peter Shor from Feb 2 2013. As in Peter Shor of 'Shors Quantum Algorithm' fame. Where he talks about whether photonic experiments have yet dealt with the loopholes:

The experiments are getting better every year, and all that was needed to close these loopholes is to have a large enough distance separation and to increase the efficiency of your detectors and your photon transmission high enough. Previously, with large enough separation to close the locality loophole, the photon loss was too large to avoid the detection loophole. We've been approaching the point at which the loopholes will be closed for the past few years, and it's almost guaranteed we'll pass it soon. – Peter Shor Feb 2 at 17:37

@Peter Shor: Thank you for your assessment. Actually, the last phrase of my answer was about the specific experimental group mentioned in the question. Interestingly, their time frame is five years. On the other hand, I often hear and read predictions that a loophole-free experiment will be conducted in a year or two and that a few experimental groups are trying to do that. However, I am afraid I am less optimistic about loophole-free demonstration of violations of the Bell inequalities. Let us wait and see. – akhmeteli Feb 2 at 18:50

So, these guys disagree with you about the potential validity of the 2008 experiment. Not just me.

Perhaps you should have a think about the concept of 'action at a distance'? Once upon a time, that was considered a bad thing in science.. That was certainly the way Einstein meant it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Again, it should be simple to understand.

An entangled particle pair is generated with a 2 state spin. This is spin up/spin down or spin down/spin up. This is sending 1 bit of information. There's nothing random about the data being sent to point A to point B.

NO MATTER WHAT STATE THE PARTICLE IS IN IT = 1 BIT OF INFORMATION.

It's that simple. So spin up/spin down and spin down/spin up = 1 bit of information. So Bob will see a D on his QCD because it's restricted to this 1 bit of information.

Your last point doesn't make any sense in the context of my post. I never said that the individuals communicating this way travel faster than light to their respective locations.

reply to post by yampa


When you talk about the CERN Neutrino, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying here. Again, entanglement has been confirmed and it occurs faster than the speed of light. The question has always been can you transmit information via entanglement.

The experiment in 2008 and the recent experiment measured entanglement at 10,000 times the speed of light or instantaneous. Again, this has been the whole debate. It's not whether entangled particles are non local and when one state is measured say spin up, then the entangled pair will be spin down. The question has been can you send any information via entanglement.

So yes, entanglement occurs faster than light and this is why there has been a question of hidden variables. When you bring up loopholes it has nothing to do with whether entanglement occurs. You posted a conversation on a message board that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about LOL. You can't be serious!

They're not talking about the 2008 experiment, their talking about loopholes which speak to Bell Inequalities. Here's the question that was asked and of course you didn't quote the question.

Researchers began using photons in 1980s to test Bell's theory and determine if Einstein's reasoning is right or wrong. Since then, researchers have used various quantum states to test the theory but continued to have loopholes in their methods, therefore falling short of a definitive result. Luo said the new collaboration would, for the first time, be using several different quantum systems—including photons, ions, quantum dots and solid-state ensembles—to test the theory across large distances and hopefully eliminate all possible loopholes, he said.

I REPEAT, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'VE MENTIONED OR ENTANGLEMENT SENDING A BIT TO POINT A TO POINT B FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Why you quoted a message board chat about loopholes and testing Bell's Theory, makes no sense to me. This has more to do with hidden variables instead of anything I've mentioned.

There's test on loopholes all the time.

15. Apr 2013 — A team led by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger has now carried out an experiment with photons, in which they have closed an important loophole. The researchers have thus provided the most complete experimental proof that the quantum world is in conflict with our everyday experience. The results of this study appear this week in the renowned journal Nature (Advance Online Publication/AOP).

Although the new experiment makes photons the first quantum particles for which, in several separate experiments, every possible loophole has been closed, the grand finale is yet to come, namely, a single experiment in which the photons are deprived of all possibilities of displaying their counterintuitive behaviour through means of classical physics. Such an experiment would also be of fundamental significance for an important practical application: ‘quantum cryptography,’ which relies on quantum mechanical principles and is considered to be absolutely secure against eavesdropping. Eavesdropping is still theoretically possible, however, as long as there are loopholes. Only when all of these are closed is a completely secure exchange of messages possible.

vcq.quantum.at...

Again, these test have nothing to do with whether entanglement is correct or if it occurs faster than light. This is a debate about hidden variables.

Here's another one from 2010.

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of physicists, including a scientist based at The University of Queensland, has recently closed an additional 'loophole' in a test explaining one of science's strangest phenomena -- quantum entanglement.

In 1935, physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) argued in a now-famous paper that “(t)he quantum mechanical description of physical reality is incomplete”.

According to EPR, “hidden variables” must exist to explain the unintuitive results of experiments with entangled particles.

In 1964, John Bell developed his famous Bell Inequality as the basis to test for the existence of these hidden variables.

In an experiment, this inequality demonstrates that quantum correlations can be stronger than that explained by the local hidden variable theory earlier proposed by EPR.

In practice, this is achieved by performing measurements on two separated quantum particles.

In their study, published online on November 1, 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team conducted a Bell test that eliminated two of these loopholes: locality, and, for the first time, freedom of choice.

phys.org...

The debate is about hidden variables and it has nothing to do with what I mentioned in my post.

I wrote an article proposing the same thing about two years ago. You can read it HERE

There are also articles on the same forum about other aspects of quantum entanglement such as the link between identical twins over long distances and where dark matter might be hiding. You can read them HERE

Originally posted by neoholographic
I REPEAT, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'VE MENTIONED OR ENTANGLEMENT SENDING A BIT TO POINT A TO POINT B FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

You haven't actually said anything as regards to quantum theory or actual entanglement experiments. You've just quoted a bunch of popular science, then when called on that, you've quoted a bunch of papers which either don't support your scifi interpretations or still have issues with experiment construction.

The thread I posted is directly relevant to whether communication via entanglement is a valid physical postulate. Closing one loophole in one experiment does not change this. As Peter Shor points out in that post.

As for the loopholes which you claim have nothing to do with FTL communication -

en.wikipedia.org... - No-communication theorem

In quantum information theory, a no-communication theorem is a result which gives conditions under which instantaneous transfer of information between two observers is impossible. These results can be applied to understand the so-called paradoxes in quantum mechanics such as the EPR paradox or violations of local realism obtained in tests of Bell's theorem. In these experiments, the no-communication theorem shows that failure of local realism does not lead to what could be referred to as "spooky communication at a distance" (in analogy with Einstein's labeling of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance").

My interpretation of this thread is that you are only accepting evidence which supports your idea that FTL communication is proven - and you are ignoring the stuff in your own links which suggest otherwise.

My point about the CERN neutrinos is that the whole world paid attention when an experiment supposedly broke FTL speeds. If people working with entanglement are regularly producing FTL results, why does no one except popular science outlets consider those results proven? Why do more sober publications still include passages like this:

From your vcq.quantum.at... link:

That is, entanglement should also be observed when the two particles are sufficiently far apart from each other that, even in principle, no information can be exchanged between them (the speed of communication is fundamentally limited by the speed of light). Testing such predictions regarding the correlations between entangled quantum particles is, however, a major experimental challenge.