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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
No.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
The wave form has collapsed in both photons in the moment that one is measured.
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...
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.
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 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
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
No.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
The wave form has collapsed in both photons in the moment that one is measured.
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...
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.
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 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
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.
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.)
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.
Originally posted by dragonridr
HIS NEW STATEMENT!
No useful information will ever travel faster then the speed of light.
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.
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.
This is way oversimplified but i hope you get the idea at any given time you have a 50 percent chance of being wrong
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.)
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)?
So with 26 channels or so, you can send a love letter faster than light, according to your idea?
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 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.
Then Michio Kaku doesn't agree with you, because he says you can't send a love letter faster than light.
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Of course you could.
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!!
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
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!!
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!