It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Is faster than light communication possible? Yes

page: 5
6
share:

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

So your quip is that the machine that is measuring and supplying the data of the entangled particles state operates at slower then speed of light, so the information from the measured entangled particle cant travel FTL; or it can, but this event cant be known in a time space FTL?

What neo has been trying to say is...You know that 2 entangled particles exist, measure one, the other instantly switches to the opposite state. So we have two robots, we entangle their particles and send one a million light years away, the robot on earth knows exactly how long the traveling robot will be traveling and how much time it would take them to get a million light years away. So when he knows he is a million light years away, the earth robot measures his entangled particle, the million light year away robot also knows he is a million light years away. WIthout him observing his entangled particle does turn to the opposite state of the earth bound robot. He has a device that registers this instant remaining in a steady state, the device takes STL to register this fact, but the time span of the earth robot measuring his particle, and the million light year robots device registering the state of the particle inside maybe takes 5 seconds or less. The million light year robot could look at his device after he reaches the million light year mark, in 20 seconds, or 20 days, or 20 years, this situation would in affect be physically unexplainable spooky action at a distance, and the entangled particle a million light years away, would have its state changed (cause and affect, the measurement on earth, causes a particle a million light years away to experience a change) faster then light.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by ImaFungi

Let's say Alice observes some entangled particles but not others. Let's say Bob is a million miles away and observes every particle sent to him.

When Alice observed one particle of the entangled pair first, Bob is getting nearly instantaneous information about the state of the particle that Alice observed. But at the time of his observation, he doesn't know which particles Alice observed or didn't observe. Alice has to send him that information at the speed of light or less.

So there is no way his "QCD" can light up telling him he got FTL information from Alice at FTL speeds. He and his QCD have no idea which particles Alice observed, unless they are informed at light speed, or unless it's a pre-arranged plan, say to just measure every single particle, in which case as Alfa1 said he can go golfing because he already knows the message in advance because it was pre-planned.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 03:43 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

What about like the situation in my reply, involving only one particle?

So your problem is the seemingly impossibility of observing one entangled particle at a time, measuring it in the state you desire it to be in, and then another and another, and having this sequence of measurements represent something on the other side.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

What about like the situation in my reply, involving only one particle?
I didn't understand your example.

So your problem is the seemingly impossibility of observing one entangled particle at a time, measuring it in the state you desire it to be in, and then another and another, and having this sequence of measurements represent something on the other side.
No, in this thread I've mostly avoided discussing the state we desire the particle to be in and have tried to reply in the context of neoholographic's scenario, that the state is irrelevant, where he called the information a "D" whether it was down/up or up/down.

But yes there is no control over the state observed.

The observations represent something on the other side, and the quantum effect happens faster than light. But you don't know what they represent faster than light. Once the slower than light signal arrives, then you can say "Aha I had these states sent to me from Alice more than 10,000 times faster than the speed of light".

If you are suggesting that every particle is being observed on both ends, then that's the pre-arranged plan scenario. I can write the result of that and all future experiments in advance here using neoholographic's notation:

It's: DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD...

So, not much communication taking place there, the outcome is known in advance.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Again, you don't read what I'm saying.

THERE WILL BE ONE ENTANGLED PAIR PER CHANNEL. THIS IS WHY I BROKE IT DOWN TO CHANNEL 1,2 AND 3.

In channel one, the only measurement is spin up/spin down or spin down/spin up which = 10. I have been saying this over and over again!

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

So if the 3 channels = DAN. You can also send the word AND. Your computer keyboard is pre-arranged information but I can send an e-mail with the letters, If you had 24 channels on the QCD, you can send text messages to each other faster than light from anywhere in the universe.

Here's an experiment that showed entanglement can reach into the past. It said:

The basic setup goes like this:

Both pairs of photons are entangled, so that the two particles in the first set are entangled with each other, and the two particles in the second set are entangled with each other.

Like I said, you need to take the time to read what I said.

edit on 13-5-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by neoholographic

While I didn't understand Imafungi's example, I think I understand yours well.
It just won't work the way you think it will.

You think Bob knows when Alice has sent something faster than light.
He doesn't.

All he can do is observe the particle. When he does this, the entangled particle was either observed by Alice, or it wasn't. He has no way of knowing which is the case when he makes the observation. He has to wait for someone to tell him if Alice also observed the other particle that was entangled. If she did, then he received the entangled state at least 10,000x faster than the speed of light. But he didn't know this when he made the observation. He could just as easily have been observing a particle where Alice didn't observe the entangled partner.

He has no way of knowing which is the case when he makes his observation.

edit on 13-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by neoholographic
In channel one, the only measurement is spin up/spin down or spin down/spin up which = 10. I have been saying this over and over again!
The only information Bob can receive on channel 1 is 10.

And as we've been saying,
1. That information will be the same whether Alice bothers to check her particle or not.
2. That information is already known to Bob even if he doesnt bother to check his particle.
3. Bob has no way of knowing if Alice has checked her particle and "sent" a message
4. That scenario will be the same no matter how many "channels" you set up.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi

Let's say Alice observes some entangled particles but not others. Let's say Bob is a million miles away and observes every particle sent to him.

When Alice observed one particle of the entangled pair first, Bob is getting nearly instantaneous information about the state of the particle that Alice observed. But at the time of his observation, he doesn't know which particles Alice observed or didn't observe. Alice has to send him that information at the speed of light or less.

So there is no way his "QCD" can light up telling him he got FTL information from Alice at FTL speeds. He and his QCD have no idea which particles Alice observed, unless they are informed at light speed, or unless it's a pre-arranged plan, say to just measure every single particle, in which case as Alfa1 said he can go golfing because he already knows the message in advance because it was pre-planned.

Things have changed!

STOCKHOLM — A French-American duo shared the 2012 Nobel Prize in physics Tuesday for experiments on quantum particles that have already resulted in ultra-precise clocks and may one day lead to computers many times faster than those in use today.
Serge Haroche of France and American David Wineland showed in the 1990s how to observe individual particles while preserving their bizarre quantum properties, something that scientists had struggled to do before.

Still think the real application for this is not computing though.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

No.

When one entangled particle is measured, the other is no longer in an unknown state, but an exact state.

If bob says and agrees that he will not be the one making the measurement/observation, but alice will be the one that makes the measurement and causes both particles to be in exact and opposite states. Then alice will measure her particle, and bobs particle will be in the exact opposite state as alices in that instant. bobs device will register that his particles entangled pair has been measured by alice. If alice measures her particle and it is Up, Bobs will be down, his device will register down. Bob can then look at his device and see that it has been registered down. The entangled particles adjusting to opposite states when one is measured is the event that is an information transfer occurring FTL.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:30 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
bobs device will register that his particles entangled pair has been measured by alice.
Please explain in detail how this happens. This is the point that is being missed.

Preferably, cite sources to support this claim.
edit on 13-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Ok, so you are saying any device conceivable will have to use some mechanism of observation to register the state change of a quantum particle, so the machine cant be observing the particle waiting for it to be measured on the other end, because this act would collapse the wave function instantly, so this is why you say they would have to pre arrange a time for bob to check his quantum particle holder, knowingly after alice has collapsed her particles wave function into an exact state. So if they were to set prearranged time for bob to check, whats the dealio?

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So if they were to set prearranged time for bob to check, whats the dealio?
Using Neoholographics example, I already know the communication:

CH1: D
CH2: A
CH3: N

So they will both check at noon GMT tomorrow and that will be the message.
They can in effect take the day off since they already know what it will be.

So there is nothing really being communicated during that experiment, it's only executing a prearranged plan with a pre-arranged message.

If they were communicating, Alice would be able to send Dan something not pre-arranged FTL. Like deciding at the last minute to only send something on channel 1 and 3 but not on channel 2.

If Alice tries to alter the plan by say sending something on channel 1 and 3 but nothing on channel 2, Dan won't know this, at least not faster than light.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

You're not making any sense whatsoever.

Information is pre -arranged!!

ALICE ISN'T SENDING SOME MAGIC FORM OF MADE UP INFORMATION!

What in the world are you talking about?

The information on your computer is pre-arranged. So of course the 3 Channels are pre arranged.

WHY DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF BOB DOESN'T KNOW IF ALICE CHANGED CHANNELS? How does this affect the letters DAN being sent to Bob faster than light?

If Alice changes the channels on her end then of course Bob isn't going to know what she's sending.

If I buy a keyboard and the letters on the keyboard are mixed up, then I will not be able to send an e-mail. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The fact is Alice can send Bob a message from say Jupiter faster than light could reach us from Jupiter.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with anything I'm saying. So what if Alice changes the channel. If so, then of course the device will send random letters just like a keyboard will type random letters if the letters are mixed up.

edit on 13-5-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Id assume there would be a symbol for not using a channel, like alice not measuring a channel. so a message could be

1:A
2:
3

im sure fore any legit communication device to work it would have thousands or million of channels, or use the same channels in a sequence coupled with memory...It seems similar to any other information device like binary or morse code, but I guess the problem comes up about the receiving device, observing the particle to capture it into memory. if alice wanted to use 3 channels, twice in a row, to say "and dan".... there would have to be some memory on bobs device, that could be aware when the entangled particles in the device were proded into an exact state, and capture her first message "and"... and then she would have to reset her device (would the particles remain entangled?) so the particles were not the exact states she choose, and then measure again to get the message "dan".

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
there would have to be some memory on bobs device, that could be aware when the entangled particles in the device were proded into an exact state
This is the flaw in neoholographics proposal. There is no such thing.

You can observe the particle.
You can not observe the particle.

Those are the options.
There's no way to know when it was prodded into its state (or not) except by light speed communication, or pre-arranged plan. Neoholographic and now perhaps you seem to think there is, but there isn't.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 07:14 PM

Originally posted by neoholographic

Is it just me, or are other people also getting annoyed that neoholographic continually ignores the genuine concerns put forward regarding his communication device?

He seems instead nowdays to misunderstand something somebody posted, and make a rant about that instead.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

You simply don't understand entanglement. Here's a couple of videos first.

When Alice measures her particle in her QCD, a measurement in Bob's entangled pair will instantly occur. Bob doesn't need to observe his particle for a measurement to occur. When Alice makes a measurement, Bob's particle in his QCD will be in a measured state.

Alice and Bob will both have particles in there QCD that's in superposition. Spin up/spin down. The entangled particles will be in a mixture of both states. When Alice measures her particle and it's spin up, she knows Bob's particle is spin down.

Alice can be on Earth and Bob in Alpha Centauri. So when Bob's particle is measured it triggers his channel and produces a D. Bob will know Alice sent him this D because his device doesn't do anything until Alice makes a measurement on her device.

Like I said, you first need to learn how entanglement works.
edit on 13-5-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by neoholographic
When Alice measures her particle in her QCD, a measurement in Bob's entangled pair will instantly occur.
Bob doesn't need to observe his particle for a measurement to occur.
To me this translates as "Bob observes the particle without observing it", or "Bob measures the particle without measuring it". I don't understand the distinction between measurement and observation in your statement.

Who or what does the "measurement" and how do they know to do the "measurement" at that specific time on that specific particle?

Can you give me a better translation?

I watched the videos and there is nothing in them I don't understand.
edit on 13-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by neoholographic

Only one problem the act of detecting a particular change requires you to check its state. So both parties have to check the particulars the only thing you would know its the state of the other particle. You have know way of knowing if a particle is measured or not all you would know is your particle measured spin up or down the only way you would know if the other person measured the particle at the same moment would be if they told you before hand or they sent a message at light speed. Suppose you travelled to your destination at the speed of light you wouldn't even be able to measure it because the person who stayed on earth would have checked their particle and could be dead already hundreds of years since time is relative. Bottom line you could have 26 entangled pairs one for each letter problem is no way to tell if any particle was observed without you observing it and you would have no idea if they observed the same particle or a different one there is no way to tell at all.So in other words sending a message is impossible,However for incription purposes its great have a computer check your entangled pair 1000 times and you have the basis of secure encription with a 1000 bit encryption because both sides would have the same key and the other great part is its truly random number generation.Currently there is no such thing as a truly random number on a computer they either use math or a clock it only seems random if you figure out the calculations being done you can break the key.

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by dragonridr

People - the last Nobel Prize for physics was given to two gentlemen that figured out how to do this (observe individual particles while preserving their bizarre quantum properties)

Serge Haroche of France and David Wineland of the US won the Nobel Prize on Tuesday for work in quantum physics that could one day open the way to revolutionary computers.

Not only have they done this, they managed to do it in two different ways. So yes the communication at a distance instantly is now possible. Again to me the interesting stuff isn't about computers - can we move the conversation along from here please...

top topics

6