Is faster than light communication possible? Yes

Michio Kaku:

You can't send a love letter from one part of the universe to another part of the universe faster than the speed of light, because the love letter has net information.

Source, the video you posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by neoholographic
Here's Dr. Michio Kaku saying information is sent faster than light. He just says the information isn't useful.

You claim that useful information can be sent faster than light, like a love letter:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So with 26 channels or so, you can send a love letter faster than light, according to your idea?

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Of course you could.

So it's clear that you and Michio Kaku disagree on this point about net information like a love letter being sent faster than light, right?

Originally posted by neoholographic
When Michio Kaku talks about net information he's agreeing with me.

This is a lack of cognitive ability in logic at the most basic level that requires little technical understanding.

It's not surprising that you are having difficulty with more cognitively challenging concepts.

In order for actual information to be "sent", a change in state has to occur in order for it to be detected. You can't get around that very fundamental fact. A "detector" is going to have detect something.

Simply saying that you will make the value the same for each channel once a change is detected wont work since a "detection" implies at least 2 values. You can't detect something when there is no change in value.

In order for actual information to be "sent", a change in state has to occur in order for it to be detected. You can't get around that very fundamental fact. A "detector" is going to have detect something.

Simply saying that you will make the value the same for each channel once a change is detected wont work since a "detection" implies at least 2 values. You can't detect something when there is no change in value.

Sadly, some of you guys don't understand entanglement, information or spin states.

I basically laid it out using Dr. Kaku's own words and you still don't understand. There's nothing I could do about that except say this:

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!

Say you have three channels.

Channel 1 = D

Channel 2 = A

Channel 3 = N

Alice could send the word Dan or And to B faster than the speed of light.

Here's what Kaku said:

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.)

1. You can send information faster than light via entanglement.

2. You can't encode information on both spin states.

3. If spin up/spin down and spin down/spin up = the same value then you can send information faster than light.

reply to post by neoholographic

Sadly, some of you guys don't understand entanglement, information or spin states.

Thats not the issue.

SO YOU HAVE 100% CHANCE OF BEING CORRECT!!

this is true since there is only one answer.

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

What is she measuring exactly if it's always the same value.

You want it to work both ways. It can't. There is absolutely no way to illustrate what you are saying. None. That's why this sounds like an Abbot and Castello bit.

How do you take a measurement and assign it only 1 possible value? What kind of communication can you possibly have?

So do they each have an on AND off state? Which is it?

1. You take a measurement of two possible values. 1 or 0 , up or down and Assign it only one value.
2. Dan gets the notification somehow that a measurement happend.
3. There are 2 possible values now: measured and not measured for each channel.
4. You are right back to where you started.
5. It doesn't work.

Originally posted by neoholographic
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.

I've ignored this thread for the last week or so because of your severe reluctance, after repeated requests, to actually tell us about the machine you propose to let Dan know when Alice has made a measurement.

Dissapointing to see that you still avoid this question, givent that it is fundamental to your idea actually working..

You believe there is something that will trigger a response at Dan's end when Alice makes a measurement. For the n'th time, tell us about this supposed invention.

And no, the thing you described back on page 8 with the Swiss towns each getting photons... isnt it.

So if you are saying that a measurement can be detected, then you don't need all these channels. You have a binary system. Measured and not measured and you send a message like this:

At regular intervals every second
Measured
Not measured
Not measured
Not measured
Measured
Measured

Or 100011

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Sure it does, especially when you said this:

I fully admit I have know idea what I'm talking about with regards to quantum physics

and this:

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.

So first off by your own admission, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and you don't care.

So, if you don't care and at least take the time to learn about entanglement before you try to debate, the discussion is futile.

If people just had D's to communicate with, they can still communicate.

One D is for the Chief.

Two D's represent his captain.

Three D's is his wife.

So in the hypothetical land of D's they can still communicate useful information to each other.

You said:

Dan gets the notification somehow that a measurement happen.

Somehow???? Like I said, if you don't care to at least read and learn about how entanglement works, it's silly to try and debate the issue.

reply to post by neoholographic


It doesn't matter the logic isn't there. You contradict yourself. There's no foundation to your argument.

reply to post by alfa1


I already explained ways this could occur. If you don't care to try and read and actually understand that's not my fault. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
So if you are saying that a measurement can be detected,

Thats exactly what neoholographic is saying.
That there is some kind of system which could cause a bell to go "ding" at Bobs end, at the exact moment Alice makes a measurement.

Despite repeated requests for details on this system, he has only ever provided:
- vague "could be" hints at what might possibly be used
- things that are wrong, because he misunderstood the experiment.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
So if you are saying that a measurement can be detected,

Thats exactly what neoholographic is saying.
That there is some kind of system which could cause a bell to go "ding" at Bobs end, at the exact moment Alice makes a measurement.

Despite repeated requests for details on this system, he has only ever provided:
- vague "could be" hints at what might possibly be used
- things that are wrong, because he misunderstood the experiment.

This again just shows pure ignorance.

If you don't try to understand the basics that's your fault.

How do you think entanglement experiments are carried out? How do you think think the entangled particle is measured and correlated if the experimenter can't detect the entangled particle pair?'

Again, I went over this several times in earlier posts.

I wish some of you guys would actually try to read actual experiments and try to understand them before you debate them.

This is because you're asking the same questions and if you don't understand entanglement and you don't take the time to understand just the basics, how will you understand the answers?

When people say things like this:

I have no clue about entanglement and don't care

Then proceed to ask the same questions over and over again. First they will not understand the answers because they don't care enough to learn just the basics. Secondly, it's just ignorant.

Originally posted by neoholographic
How do you think entanglement experiments are carried out? How do you think think the entangled particle is measured and correlated if the experimenter can't detect the entangled particle pair?'

Of course the experimenter can detect the particle.
We've been over this before.

What they cant do is detect if the OTHER experimenter has measured their particle in their detector.

Bob makes a measurement of his particle in his detector. He has no way of knowing beforehand if Alice has done her measurement or not.

reply to post by alfa1


You said:

Bob makes a measurement of his particle in his detector. He has no way of knowing beforehand if Alice has done her measurement or not.

Of course he does. This is entanglement.

If Bob had no way of knowing, how could we know in experiment after experiment that when you measure one particle it causes the entangled pair to take a spin state?

We could never say particle A is the cause of particle B's measurement if we couldn't detect that Particle A was measured.

There wouldn't be billions spent for quantum communication and quantum communication networks if we couldn't detect when an entangled particle pair was measured.

This is just the basics of entanglement. Here's a video yet again:



Again, we couldn't know that particle A influences it's entangled pair if we couldn't detect this influence which is entanglement.

This is just the basics.

Neo, you have denounced the posts of most people in this thread as 'gibberish' etc but the fact is you are the one that doesn't understand what you are talking about in relation to your OP. Everyone understands your scheme and has explained adequately out why it won't work but you persist in thinking that everyone else doesn't understand what they are talking about.

More depressing is your belief that you have contrived a very clever scheme to achieve >C classical information transmission which some of the best minds in the last century didn't think of.

The only interesting science in this thread is your psychology. I think you would make a great politician.

.

Originally posted by neoholographic
When people say things like this:

I have no clue about entanglement and don't care

Then proceed to ask the same questions over and over again. First they will not understand the answers because they don't care enough to learn just the basics. Secondly, it's just ignorant.

If you can't show how your system would work on a simple model, understanding entanglement is meaningless. I would focus on basics like what "on" and "off" means. If you can't understand that the act of sending a message means that you are changing a value somewhere regardless of the medium then what good is pretending that you understand something like quantum physics?

You do understand that since you have a way to detect a measurement that you don't need to worry about your measurement being one value. Dont you? It's a simple question. Its either measured or it's not. Correct? If this is true than what you have been arguing is completely wrong.

Why on earth do you need to know about entanglement? Will Dan need to know about entanglement in order for this to work? Do you need to know how computers work in order to type a message? It doesn't matter. We all agree that entanglement Exists. That's not the issue. The issue is that your method of communication won't work and that you are missing the obvious method that will work if you can actually detect a measurement. It's over your head isn't it?

reply to post by neoholographic

If people just had D's to communicate with, they can still communicate.
One D is for the Chief.

Two D's represent his captain.
...

The part you are missing over and over again is that you don't even understand your own examples.

In order to know the difference between 1 D and 2 Ds and 3 Ds is that you need another value which is no D. Otherwise I would have one long string of Ds and no way to determine if it's 1, 2 or 6 Ds.

The only way to have anything resembling communication is by having 2 possible values for each bit of data as each of your examples demonstrate.

Originally posted by neoholographic
If Bob had no way of knowing, how could we know in experiment after experiment that when you measure one particle it causes the entangled pair to take a spin state?

We could never say particle A is the cause of particle B's measurement if we couldn't detect that Particle A was measured.

Scenario 1:
when Alice does a measurement of her particle, she will get a result of spin up or spin down.
when Bob does a measurement of his particle, he will get a result of spin up or spin down.
Now of course due to entanglement, Bob will get the opposite result than Alice.

I think we agree on that, yes?

But what happens if Alice is running a little late, and Bob measures his particle first?

Scenario 2:
when Bob does a measurement of his particle, he will get a result of spin up or spin down.
when Alice does a measurement of her particle, she will get a result of spin up or spin down.
Now of course due to entanglement, Alice will get the opposite result than Bob.

From Bobs point of view, he has no way of knowing for sure, which of those two scenarios occured.
From Bobs point of view, his measurement yielded a result of spin up or spin down.
Thats all he knows.

And I refer you back to the key issue in this discussion: There is no way Bob can check to see IF the particle has resolved into a spin state or not, before doing that measurement.

reply to post by alfa1


This would be entirely too easy to demonstrate. If I set up a web page with a checkbox on it, all you would have to do is check its value after I check it or uncheck it. Is that how it would work? What are the parameters?

I can even set one up that produces an endless amount of Ds.

Or a 26 "channel" check box list each representing a letter. All you have to do is look at which boxes are checked to see if you can decode a real message from a random one.

Name it.