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.

 

Is faster than light communication possible? Yes

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Peter Brake
The wave form has collapsed in both photons in the moment that one is measured.
No.

Dragonridr is talking about wave function, not wave form. The wave function of photon 2 has been CHANGED when you measure the spin of photon 1, and the change is such that if you measure the spin of photon 2 it will reflect the entanglement, perhaps instantaneously. But the wave function hasn't collapsed completely on photon 2 just because you measured photon 1. You could say there's a "convergence" of the wave function, or you might even call it a partial collapse, but it hasn't fully collapsed to perform as you suggest in the double slit experiment example.

This may be over your head if you don't know the difference between wave form and wave function, but this is the way Einstein described it:

www.pitt.edu...

All quantum theoreticians now agree upon the following. If I make a complete measurement of S1, I obtain from the results of the measurement and from ψ12 an entirely definite ψ-function ψ2 of the system S2. The character of ψ2 then depends upon what kind of measurement I perform on S1.
If you can understand that statement by Einstein, it may shed some light on dragonridr's explanation. ψ2 still exists and hasn't collapsed until you measure photon 2, but because ψ2 was changed by the spin measurement of photon 1, the spin state of photon 2 has already been determined in the changed ψ2. This doesn't mean ψ2 has completely collapsed as you seem to think.

If you don't believe this, I'd be delighted to see you win a Nobel prize when you demonstrate FTL communication is possible without a classical communication channel to make the communication useful.

Also I don't know why you're suggesting we don't understand Bell's theorem, I haven't seen anyone deny that information is transmitted faster than light. Seems like we all agree on that, including Michio Kaku, but as he said this doesn't mean you can send a "love letter" faster than light.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


I was trying to explain it you did a beter job thx. I guess the easiest way i can think of it is light doesnt act any diffrently in the second photon if you measure the first and or not. Light in itself is a frequency we see as a wave. Thus we have terms such as microwaves. So unless we measure it which destoys the photon in most casses. we have no idea anything because theres another problem you dont understand. Do you know how hard it is to make an entangled pair? Its odds are around 1 out of 10000. so youll have 10000 regular photons and 1 entangled pair hiding in there. But guess how you find it thats right measuring it. So what i keep saying over and over with what we currently understand in physics what you want to do is not possible. Either new laws of physics needs to be discovered or Einstine will be correct with only slight revision. HIS NEW STATEMENT!

No useful information will ever travel faster then the speed of light.

This is why i keep saying the randomness of this whole thing is perfect for encryption!!




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Peter Brake
The wave form has collapsed in both photons in the moment that one is measured.
No.

Dragonridr is talking about wave function, not wave form. The wave function of photon 2 has been CHANGED when you measure the spin of photon 1, and the change is such that if you measure the spin of photon 2 it will reflect the entanglement, perhaps instantaneously. But the wave function hasn't collapsed completely on photon 2 just because you measured photon 1. You could say there's a "convergence" of the wave function, or you might even call it a partial collapse, but it hasn't fully collapsed to perform as you suggest in the double slit experiment example.

This may be over your head if you don't know the difference between wave form and wave function, but this is the way Einstein described it:

www.pitt.edu...

All quantum theoreticians now agree upon the following. If I make a complete measurement of S1, I obtain from the results of the measurement and from ψ12 an entirely definite ψ-function ψ2 of the system S2. The character of ψ2 then depends upon what kind of measurement I perform on S1.
If you can understand that statement by Einstein, it may shed some light on dragonridr's explanation. ψ2 still exists and hasn't collapsed until you measure photon 2, but because ψ2 was changed by the spin measurement of photon 1, the spin state of photon 2 has already been determined in the changed ψ2. This doesn't mean ψ2 has completely collapsed as you seem to think.

If you don't believe this, I'd be delighted to see you win a Nobel prize when you demonstrate FTL communication is possible without a classical communication channel to make the communication useful.

Also I don't know why you're suggesting we don't understand Bell's theorem, I haven't seen anyone deny that information is transmitted faster than light. Seems like we all agree on that, including Michio Kaku, but as he said this doesn't mean you can send a "love letter" faster than light.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


I was trying to explain it you did a beter job thx. I guess the easiest way i can think of it is light doesnt act any diffrently in the second photon if you measure the first and or not. Light in itself is a frequency we see as a wave. Thus we have terms such as microwaves. So unless we measure it which destoys the photon in most casses. we have no idea anything because theres another problem you dont understand. Do you know how hard it is to make an entangled pair? Its odds are around 1 out of 10000. so youll have 10000 regular photons and 1 entangled pair hiding in there. But guess how you find it thats right measuring it. So what i keep saying over and over with what we currently understand in physics what you want to do is not possible. Either new laws of physics needs to be discovered or Einstine will be correct with only slight revision. HIS NEW STATEMENT!

No useful information will ever travel faster then the speed of light.

This is why i keep saying the randomness of this whole thing is perfect for encryption!!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sadly, you still don't understand what you're talking about.

I asked about the term "net information" and you didn't have a clue as to what net information means.

When Michio Kaku talks about net information he's agreeing with me. I said you can't send information on both spin up and spin down states. Here's Dr. Kaku explaining this further and he is actually supporting what I have been saying.


2. If you wave a flashlight across the night sky, then, in principle, its image can travel faster than light speed (since the beam of light is going from one part of the Universe to another part on the opposite side, which is, in principle, many light years away). The problem here is that no material object is actually moving faster than light. (Imagine that you are surrounded by a giant sphere one light year across. The image from the light beam will eventually hit the sphere one year later. This image that hits the sphere then races across the entire sphere within a matter of seconds, although the sphere is one light year across.) Just the image of the beam as it races across the night sky is moving faster than light, but there is no message, no net information, no material object that actually moves along this image.


Again, nothing is moving faster than light. Information isn't being carried faster than light therefore causality or local realism isn't being violated. Of course you can't send information this way and this isn't what I described. He goes on to say this:


3. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. If I have two electrons close together, they can vibrate in unison, according to the quantum theory. If I then separate them, an invisible umbilical cord emerges which connects the two electrons, even though they may be separated by many light years. If I jiggle one electron, the other electron "senses" this vibration instantly, faster than the speed of light. Einstein thought that this therefore disproved the quantum theory, since nothing can go faster than light.

But actually this experiment (the EPR experiment) has been done many times, and each time Einstein was wrong. Information does go faster than light, but Einstein has the last laugh. This is because the information that breaks the light barrier is random, and hence useless. (For example, let's say a friend always wears one red sock and one green sock. You don't know which leg wears which sock. If you suddenly see that one foot has a red sock, then you know instantly, faster than the speed of light, that the other sock is green. But this information is useless. You cannot send Morse code or usable information via red and green socks.)


bigthink.com...

BINGO!!

I have been saying in post after post that you can't send information on both spin up and spin down states. I agree, you can't send information using red/green socks just like you couldn't send information using spin up/spin down.

BUT, IF BOTH SOCKS ARE GREEN, YOU CAN SEND INFORMATION FASTER THAN LIGHT!!

So in channel 1, it's just green socks. In channel 2 it's just red socks. So you can easily send useful information this way.

If Alice measures channel 1 then Bob knows Alice is wearing green socks. If Alice measures channel 2 then Bob knows Alice is wearing red socks.

If channels 1-24 each = 1 letter of the alphabet, then you can send a message faster than light!!
edit on 22-5-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
HIS NEW STATEMENT!

No useful information will ever travel faster then the speed of light.
While that may be true, I wouldn't make that claim. I can only claim that it's never been demonstrated so far to my knowledge, and it doesn't seem likely to happen.

But, we should remember that tomorrow we will learn something we didn't know today, so this could change. I'm not expecting it to happen, but I can't rule out future possibilities.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Im going to try one last time with you before i give up But thats because your not understanding the epr experiment. So letme attempt to explain it to you since you misunderstand what it tells you. The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) Paradox is based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. With this nothing has a definite position, a definite trajectory, or a definite momentum. The second part is if we measure one we can't know the other its impossible and I know what you're thinking hey entangled pairs i can look at one check position the other trajectory. But guess what you can't particles are sneaky they let you only check one thing from their wave function. So from my point I'm taking a particle we split it we have a positron and an electron ill give the positron to alice and the electron to bob.

Now there both in there labs with the particle i made now my instructions to them is give me the spin in both the x and y axis x being north south and y being east west. imediately they go oh wait thats easy so alice says ill measure the x and bob you measure the y axis at the same time. So alice measures the x axis finds out its spining north or up if you will. So bobs going oh i got this he measures his particle and guess what he cant it keeps showing him its spinning down hes unabled to see the y axis. Well the reason is if he could and you you then know two things about a particle but you cant because Hiesenberg showed us this. And if the entangled pair isnt letting me know the y axis then it knows that the x axis was checked but how can it when we measured both particles at the same time???? this isnt for communication precisely because particles randomly come out of there wave function then to make matters worse only let us check one thing. So now i see that light bulb your thinking hey if alice measures x ill know by measuring y true but guess what again no usefull information because you have a 50 50 shot, Heres what i mean you can get 4 outcomes didnt measure x didnt measure y did measure x and did measure y, Now two of these states will look exactly the same two bob on his end if he is told to all ways measure y axis. he cant tell the difrence between alice measuring x and not measuring x or alice measuring y and not measuring y, This is way oversimplified but i hope you get the idea at any given time you have a 50 percent chance of being wrong and higher if you dont measure at the same exact moment, So bottom line is the paradox experiment helps prove we cant use this for communication so quoting it you text as a reason it can be done is silly. Thats the whole point of the paradox and thats why Einstine said it had to be wrong!!!! but guess what Einstine was wrong!!!! So trying to use EPR to prove we can send a message is silly because it would disprove Hiesenberg which then throws out alot of quantum physics.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
I asked about the term "net information" and you didn't have a clue as to what net information means.

When Michio Kaku talks about net information he's agreeing with me.
No, you posted a video of Kaku saying that something happens faster than light, but it can't be used to send a love letter FTL.

You're claiming in effect that it can be used to send a love letter FTL. He's not agreeing with you.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Sadly, you still don't understand what you're talking about. You said:


This is way oversimplified but i hope you get the idea at any given time you have a 50 percent chance of being wrong


I don't know how many times I have to say this but here we go again.

You don't have a 50% chance of being wrong. This is because both spin states = the same thing!!

SO YOU HAVE 100% CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT!!

So spin up/spin down and spin down/spin up = Green in channel 1.

spin down/spin up = Red in channel 2.

Go back to the socks example from Kaku.

If Alice and Bob wanted to coordinate socks each day, they could do so faster than light.

When Alice where's Green socks she just measures channel 1.

When Alice wants to where Red socks she just measures channel 2 and Bob and Alice will both be wearing red socks.

AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT ENCODING INFORMATION ON BOTH SPIN STATES SO YOU HAVE 100% CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Nope, you talked about net information but you didn't know what Kaku was talking about.

I was never talking about information being carried from point A to point B.

Of course net information can't be carried from point A to point B and I never made that claim.

Net information can go faster than light from point A to point B in the way I described.

Again:

Go back to the socks example from Kaku.

If Alice and Bob wanted to coordinate socks each day, they could do so faster than light.

When Alice where's Green socks she just measures channel 1.

When Alice wants to where Red socks she just measures channel 2 and Bob and Alice will both be wearing red socks.

AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT ENCODING INFORMATION ON BOTH SPIN STATES SO YOU HAVE 100% CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


So, now you're changing your story to say you can't send text on 26 channels, one for each letter, to send a love letter faster than light? (as Kaku says can't be done)?

Because you said it before.

I don't know what's so confusing about a love letter. That's the example of "net information" that Kaku used in the video you posted.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I already told you what he was talking about when he said net information and I agree you can't send information this way if you're encoding information on 2 states.

All probable states equal the same thing. Here's Kaku again:


3. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. If I have two electrons close together, they can vibrate in unison, according to the quantum theory. If I then separate them, an invisible umbilical cord emerges which connects the two electrons, even though they may be separated by many light years. If I jiggle one electron, the other electron "senses" this vibration instantly, faster than the speed of light. Einstein thought that this therefore disproved the quantum theory, since nothing can go faster than light.

But actually this experiment (the EPR experiment) has been done many times, and each time Einstein was wrong. Information does go faster than light, but Einstein has the last laugh. This is because the information that breaks the light barrier is random, and hence useless. (For example, let's say a friend always wears one red sock and one green sock. You don't know which leg wears which sock. If you suddenly see that one foot has a red sock, then you know instantly, faster than the speed of light, that the other sock is green. But this information is useless. You cannot send Morse code or usable information via red and green socks.)


Of course you can't send a love letter this way and this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

When he says red sock and green sock, he's talking about 2 spin states. If you try to send information using both states as 2 states of information then you will just get randomness.

IF BOTH STATES EQUAL GREEN IN 1 CHANNEL AND BOTH STATES EQUAL RED IN CHANNEL 2 THEN YOU CAN SEND INFORMATION FASTER THAN LIGHT!!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by neoholographic
 


So, now you're changing your story to say you can't send text on 26 channels, one for each letter, to send a love letter faster than light? (as Kaku says can't be done)?


Imagine a keyboard with the alphabet for typing, and each letter is associated with a 'channel', so when a letter is pressed 1 of the 26 particles, the one associated with that letter, is measured. There is a device far away that contains the 26 corresponding entangled particles. The biggest problem (something NEO has tried to vouch for, describe and explain) is what type of theoretical device could, in linear time (like how i am linearly pressing letter after letter to write these words) sense that its corresponding particle was measured, and store that information, so when the typing is done, or during, the sequence of channel typing is captured and displayed.
edit on 22-5-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
IF BOTH STATES EQUAL GREEN IN 1 CHANNEL AND BOTH STATES EQUAL RED IN CHANNEL 2 THEN YOU CAN SEND INFORMATION FASTER THAN LIGHT!!
So with 26 channels or so, you can send a love letter faster than light, according to your idea?



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Of course you could.

If Alice is on earth and Bob is in Alpha Centauri, she could sent a message to Bob faster than the 4.37 light years it would take light to reach Bob from earth.

I wouldn't be surprised if advanced civilizations already use this type of communication.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Peter Brake
 


I have been really enjoying this discussion and have been learning a lot. Just watch those Freudian slits.

So every Friday at 5 o'clock Bob channels the photons through a series of double clits until he only has the well defined two lines (the photons travelling as particles) He then asks his computers which photons they were in the sequence that he fired, and decodes the message that is contained within them.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Of course you could.
Then Michio Kaku doesn't agree with you, because he says you can't send a love letter faster than light.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sure he does. Because I never said you can send net information using both spin states. That was my point.

BOTH STATES WOULD HAVE TO EQUAL THE SAME THING SO IT WOULD BE BROKEN DOWN INTO CHANNELS!

If Channel 1 is green and channel 2 is red then you can send information faster than light.

If you say spin up is red and spin down is green then you can't because you will get random spin states each time.

SO YOU CAN"T SEND INFORMATION THIS WAY AND THAT"S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THROUGHOUT THE THREAD!!



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sure he does. Because I never said you can send net information using both spin states. That was my point.

BOTH STATES WOULD HAVE TO EQUAL THE SAME THING SO IT WOULD BE BROKEN DOWN INTO CHANNELS!

If Channel 1 is green and channel 2 is red then you can send information faster than light.

If you say spin up is red and spin down is green then you can't because you will get random spin states each time.

SO YOU CAN"T SEND INFORMATION THIS WAY AND THAT"S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THROUGHOUT THE THREAD!!


So when you send this information, is there something on the receiving end that will actively receive it? If chanell 1 is green and channell 2 red, the only way to know if red is being communicated is if red is "on" and green is "off". How else would I know which one to pick?

This will also be an issue if they are to be in sequence in order to spell a word with 26 channels. If I am following correctly, doesn't the receiver have to actively monitor each channel? If so, how can they know which sequence to go in to spell a word?

I fully admit I have know idea what I'm talking about with regards to quantum physics, but this should easy to flow chart regardless of how fast the information is going or even how the information will get there. I think the requirements for communication are going to be impossible to meet with this set of rules.

The keyboard does have predetermined values but each one is either pressed or not pressed and in sequence. It's simple, just explain how to use a keyboard to send a message with the same restrictions.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




The only information Bob can receive on channel 1 is 10.

Also, information is pre-arranged. Say I want to use 2 sticks to convey information. I tell a friend, if there's 2 sticks in the driveway, I'm at home. If it's just 1 stick in the driveway

Your stick example has 2 possible values. 1 or 2. If the value is always 10, what can you do with that? If you are saying that the only value that can be sent is 10 or else its nothing, than its on or off 1 or 0.

Why not save some trees and use 1 stick either it's there or it's not there. 1 or 0.

If you are saying the measurement is detected when it occurs than that means it is also not detected which is also 2 possible values.

I have no clue about entanglement and don't care at this point because if the rule is that I can have only one value per channel, then you have no communication whatsoever. It's impossible.
edit on 23-5-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



When he says red sock and green sock, he's talking about 2 spin states. If you try to send information using both states as 2 states of information then you will just get randomness.

IF BOTH STATES EQUAL GREEN IN 1 CHANNEL AND BOTH STATES EQUAL RED IN CHANNEL 2 THEN YOU CAN SEND INFORMATION FASTER THAN LIGHT!!


This is a contradictory statement. "Sending information" by default means that NO information is on the receiving end and is in the state of "waiting" and when the information gets there its in the state of "received". If both states equal green in one channel and both states equal red in the other, no information can be sent if the same condition is on the other side.

Here is green and red. How do I "send information" with only one state per channel?

Sender---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Receiver
GREEN --------------------------------channel-------------------------------------------GREEN
RED ------------------------------------channel---------–-------------------------------------RED

Your the sender. By modifying the chart above, tell me which sock to wear.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Sadly, you still don't understand what you're talking about. You said:


This is way oversimplified but i hope you get the idea at any given time you have a 50 percent chance of being wrong


I don't know how many times I have to say this but here we go again.

You don't have a 50% chance of being wrong. This is because both spin states = the same thing!!

SO YOU HAVE 100% CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT!!

So spin up/spin down and spin down/spin up = Green in channel 1.

spin down/spin up = Red in channel 2.

Go back to the socks example from Kaku.

If Alice and Bob wanted to coordinate socks each day, they could do so faster than light.

When Alice where's Green socks she just measures channel 1.

When Alice wants to where Red socks she just measures channel 2 and Bob and Alice will both be wearing red socks.

AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT ENCODING INFORMATION ON BOTH SPIN STATES SO YOU HAVE 100% CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT!


Ok math is not your strong suit either i can tell adding more variables does not increase the odds. All it does is lower them buy adding more places stuff can go wrong. You cant have something that provides you the wrong answer 50 percent of the time add more of them and expect it to improve!! I know you think that it increases but it doesnt if you use two chanels now your at 75 % chance of getting the wrong message.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join