Is faster than light communication possible? Yes

Thank you for posting. I heard recently CERN found a particle that travels faster than light, also. I think the ancient tradition of shamanism and the paranormal phenomena such like telepathy, remote viewing etc. etc. are examples of this notion, only now it is proven scientifically like your post did. The question is: how do we get those abilities back into our lives? I am sure some people have these abilities - hence they are called psychic - but many of us do not.

reply to post by fareast123

I heard recently CERN found a particle that travels faster than light

That was later found to be an error in their measuring equipment.

As for the rest, go back a page and read my articles on quantum entanglement. The twin article does more to support quantum telepathy than anything else I have read recently.

reply to post by yampa


First off, you haven't cited one paper or published article that refutes anything I've said. You made the claim that experiments carried out in 2008 and 2010 had all of these issues and you listed 2 people talking on a message board to try to refute it. I listed the question from that site, which you didn't do and it didn't refute anything.

It was a question that actually supports what I'm saying. Every test so far supports Bell's theory and like THE PUBLISHED PAPERS I listed in the last post, they showed 2 of the 3 loopholes have been closed.

Again, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THEORY I LISTED ABOVE IN MY OP.

The question isn't is local realism violated. The question is, is quantum mechanics a complete description of reality or are there hidden variables or some other theory that explains this. This is from your Wikipedia quote.

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").

Even your own quote doesn't question if local realism is violated. That's the point of my post.

Local realism is violated therefor at least 1 bit of information can be sent from A to B faster than the speed of light.

It doesn't violate Einstein and faster than light travel because local realism is violated and there isn't anything "traveling" faster than light as your Wikipedia post showed.

Some people say you can't communicate this way, but I disagree. People are stuck on what Einstein said but again, LOCAL REALISM is violated in terms of entanglement and non locality.

I've noticed you haven't tried to refute anything I've said because you can't.

TELL ME WHY YOU CAN'T TRANSFER AT LEAST 1 BIT OF INFORMATION VIA ENTANGLEMENT?

One problem here is, people are thinking Bob can't know the outcome so Alice can only send Bob random numbers.

This is true, if you treat this like quantum computing. In quantum computing, you do calculations based on superposition. In this type of communication, it depends on measured states.

If I were to say spin up/spin down = 1 and spin down/spin up = 0 and both states were separate calculations, then you would just be sending random information.

IN THIS CASE, BOTH STATES ARE 1 CALCULATION.

So Bob doesn't need to know what state the particle is in because ALL STATES = the same thing.

So spin up/spin down and spin down/spin up = 10 which equals a D. The only thing Bob would see is a D no matter what state the entangled particle pair is in.

"Is faster than light communication possible"?

Yes, if it is possible then (er), it's possible. It is possible if there is real science to demonstrate the fact. If it is hypothetical, then that's not science, nor is it factual or supported by evidence..

Regards

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by yampa

 

First off, you haven't cited one paper or published article that refutes anything I've said. You made the claim that experiments carried out in 2008 and 2010 had all of these issues and you listed 2 people talking on a message board to try to refute it. I listed the question from that site, which you didn't do and it didn't refute anything.

You don't seem to get it. It's not just me disagreeing that your FTL papers have not yet proven 'spooky' postulates are valid. It's Peter Shor. If Peter Shor says:

"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

How can the papers you have provided about photonic entanglement be widely considered to have proven FTL communication via entanglement? Are you saying Peter Shor and the poster below don't know what they are talking about?

Peter Shor
en.wikipedia.org...

Who does know what they are talking about? You? Extremetech? Your future self from a parallel multiverse?

Originally posted by neoholographic
One problem here is, people are thinking Bob can't know the outcome so Alice can only send Bob random numbers.

This is true, if you treat this like quantum computing. In quantum computing, you do calculations based on superposition. In this type of communication, it depends on measured states.

If I were to say spin up/spin down = 1 and spin down/spin up = 0 and both states were separate calculations, then you would just be sending random information.

IN THIS CASE, BOTH STATES ARE 1 CALCULATION.

So Bob doesn't need to know what state the particle is in because ALL STATES = the same thing.

So spin up/spin down and spin down/spin up = 10 which equals a D. The only thing Bob would see is a D no matter what state the entangled particle pair is in.

I don't follow your logic.

If you're defining each observation as a "D", what do you even need quantum entanglement for?

You can just have bob flip coins and say that any outcome (heads or tails) is defined as "D". Then all measurements will be D.

I don't see how defining measurements as a string of "D"s regardless of the actual state observed by Bob helps with FTL communication, whether he's measuring local coin flips or quantum entangled particles.

reply to post by yampa


What??

First off, Peter Shor didn't say anything about photonic entanglement and the paper about entanglement being 10,000 times the speed of light or instant. You posted a comment that Peter Shor said on a website about loopholes not rather entanglement occurs faster than the speed of light or that entanglement violates local realism.

Secondly, Peter Shor agrees with me that these loopholes are being closed and he believes all of them will be closed.

AGAIN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FTL COMMUNICATION OR THE PAPERS FROM 2008 AND 2010 THAT SAYS ENTANGLEMENT IS 10,000 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

This is what Peter Shor said:

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

This has nothing to do with FTL Communication or if entanglement occurs instantly or 10,000 times the speed of light.

Explain to me in your own words how this relates to entanglement and the debate on local realism? You keep pointing to Shor and a comment he made on a message board that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

I noticed you also avoid my question like the plague.

Why can't you send 1 bit of information via entanglement? How does what Peter Shor said speak to anything I have said? You keep quoting Peter Shor but you never explain how what Peter Shor said pertains to or refutes anything I have said.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Like I said, it's simple logic and I explained how you can send more than just a D. Please read the entire post before responding.

Secondly, a coin flip doesn't occur instantly or 10,000 times the speed of light.

Lastly, if you just send a D, you're sending information instantly from point A to point B. So if you just send D's, it's information. If I send you 1 D, then meet me on 10th Street. If I send 2 D's, meet me at the Mall and if I send 3 D's then I'm not going. Like I said though, you can send more than just D's.

You keep saying you don't understand but what is it you don't understand? Do you understand entanglement? I'm trying to understand where your coming from.

Originally posted by neoholographic
You keep saying you don't understand but what is it you don't understand? Do you understand entanglement? I'm trying to understand where your coming from.

I understand entanglement pretty well though not as well as the physicists who study it.

You seem to be confusing information with communication. My point with the coin flips is that you have just as much information from the coin flips giving you a bunch of D's as you get from quantum entangled particles giving you a bunch of D's. In neither case is there any faster than light communication taking place. In the case of quantum entangled particles you know the state of the both entangled particles which was determined faster than the speed of light, but since this state was random, no communication took place.

If I send you 1 D, then meet me on 10th Street. If I send 2 D's, meet me at the Mall and if I send 3 D's then I'm not going.

Regarding sending a varying number of "D"s, to communicate as you suggest, you'll need to provide a source for that. I've never seen any such experiment. In your example, D's are being received by Bob. You have no idea what is being sent. So as far as I know what you say about sending 1 "D" meaning A and 2 "D"s meaning B has never been done but if you have information to the contrary I'd love to read it. I think your assumption this is possible is due to you not understanding the experiments.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Wrong, you said:

In the case of quantum entangled particles you know the state of the both entangled particles which was determined faster than the speed of light, but since this state was random, no communication took place.

In this case the state isn't random. It's only random if you try to encode information on both states. Both states being spin up/spin down and spin down/spin up. That's not what I'm doing here. Both states = 1 bit of information therefore it's not random.

The entangled pair starts out as a superposition of both states. Spin up/spin down and spin down/spin up. Say you do a measurement on one pair and it's spin up, you know the entangled pair is spin down. This occurs faster than light. This is why Einstein called it spooky action at a distance.

So say Alice is in building A and Bob is next door at building B. The only thing that's random is if Alice will measure spin up or spin down. If both states = the same bit of information then the randomness is removed. So both spin up/spin down or spin down/spin up = 10 which = D. So no matter which measurement occurs with Alice it equals the same bit of information. This same bit of information is sent to Bob in building B faster than the speed of light. On Bob's end, a measurement of spin up or spin down = 10 which = D.

Say you had 3 channels, it will look like this:

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.

The word DAN can be sent from Alice to Bob faster than the speed of light.

Originally posted by neoholographic
Say you had 3 channels, it will look like this:

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.

If you're at the receiving end, how do you know if anything at all was even sent?

You didn't provide any source showing where anything like this has been done, as I requested.

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 the sticking point is that you dont know what the state is going to be until you untangle them.

You dont know if its going to be spin up/down or the other way around until you've already done it.

Are you going to send a "D" or an "A"?
You wont know until its sent.

Originally posted by yampa "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)."

quite a 'mistake' for such high-minded scientists, as a group, to have made.

Originally posted by RoScoLaz

Originally posted by yampa "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)."

quite a 'mistake' for such high-minded scientists, as a group, to have made.

Actually, the CERN scientists didn't make the mistake. It was made by the group running the neutrino experiment about 700 miles away and being fed neutrinos through the earth from CERN. It turned out that one of their timing devices was not properly calibrated due to a poor connection in one of the connectors. When they found the bad connection and repaired it everything went back to normal.

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by RoScoLaz

Originally posted by yampa "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)."

quite a 'mistake' for such high-minded scientists, as a group, to have made.

Actually, the CERN scientists didn't make the mistake. It was made by the group running the neutrino experiment about 700 miles away and being fed neutrinos through the earth from CERN. It turned out that one of their timing devices was not properly calibrated due to a poor connection in one of the connectors. When they found the bad connection and repaired it everything went back to normal.

well.. that's the official explanation. A close reading of their published paper might also offer embarrassing fundamental mistakes in the calculation of the error margin in the experiment, which meant the FTL result was always within the margin of error and thus not statistically significant. A very similar mistake was found to persist across many years of peer reviewed high-end journals in neuroscience recently. That is, educated scientists often do not understand how to calculate statistical significance properly.

Originally posted by alfa1
But the sticking point is that you dont know what the state is going to be until you untangle them.

You dont know if its going to be spin up/down or the other way around until you've already done it.

Are you going to send a "D" or an "A"?
You wont know until its sent.

What he seems to be suggesting is, if the sender sends anything on channel 1 it's a D. So, the spin state doesn't matter, either spin state will be considered a "D" on channel 1.
If the sender sends anything on channel 2 it's an A, again regardless of spin state.

What he seems to be missing is that the receiver has no way of knowing if anything was sent at all on either channel, if the receiver data is all you have.

The experiments involve observing both the entangled particles at both locations. But if you only look at one of them at one location you have no way to know if anything at all is being "sent". That is the flaw in the proposed communication scheme.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What???

This makes no sense.


Again, you're just sending 1 bit of information per channel. So Bob can only receive the 1 bit for that channel. This isn't like quantum computing where you carry out calculations on both states at the same time. In this case, both states are reduced to 1 bit of information. Bob can only receive that 1 bit of information on that channel and this reduces randomness and uncertainty.

The only way Bob is uncertain as to what measurement will occur is if the measurements are assigned more than 1 bit of information.

reply to post by neoholographic


Ok, so we have two QCD's, one on Earth with Alice and one on Mars with Bob. Each has a large supply of entangled particles, queued up in order.

Now Alice presses a button, say 'D' to send a message. What does Alice's QCD do to initiate a transmission and send the 'D'?

Originally posted by neoholographic
The only way Bob is uncertain as to what measurement will occur is if the measurements are assigned more than 1 bit of information.

In your scenario, Bob observes the entangled particle. It may or may not have been observed on the other end, if he has no information from the other end, so how does his observation tell him anything?

The reason this doesn't make any sense to you I suspect is because you don't understand the experiment, so let me give some examples. In the experiment, the Bob end particle is observed almost simultaneously with the Alice end particle and experimenters observe that the linkage between the two particles is faster than the speed of light. But if you don't look at both particles on both ends, how can you tell if the particle has been observed on the other end or not?

Let's look at entangled pair A. Alice observes it first, then faster than the speed of light, Bob can observe the entangled state of its partner.

Now let's look at entangled pair B. Alice makes no observation. Bob observes the state. In this case, you could say Bob effectively becomes the sender, because the entangled particle on Alice's end will collapse to the entangled state when Bob makes his observation. But Alice never observed at the particle.

So from the experimenter's view, pair A demonstrated sending the entangled state from Alice to Bob.
Pair B would have demonstrated sending the entanglement information from Bob to Alice, if Alice had looked at the particle, but she didn't.

Pair B demonstrates why your scheme fails. Bob looked at the state of pair B and has no way of knowing that the state he observed was or wasn't "sent" by Alice making an observation. In fact after looking at a particle from entangled pair A and one from pair B, without slower than light information from Alice's end, Bob doesn't know if the number of "D"s he received was zero, one, or two. He has no way to know. The experimenters only know he received one "D" because they have information from Alice's end about what Alice did and did not observe.

You seem to think all Bob has to do is listen for some kind of Morse code click and if he hears one, that's a D. It doesn't work the way you think.

I don't know if FTL communication may be possible or not someday. What I do know is that so far I've never seen it demonstrated, and that you haven't shown anything to the contrary, except a lack of understanding of how the entanglement experiments work.