Is faster than light communication possible? Yes

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Brake
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.
[Citation needed]

And here are some citations for you to read.

First, their work is theoretical:
phys.org...

the Cambridge physicists' protocol is completely theoretical
So you would have to show experiments verifying their work to conclude anything has been proven.

Second, in this description of their work there is no mention of FTL communication, just computing applications:
Entanglement recycling makes teleportation more practical

As far as I can tell, a classical channel is still required with quantum teleportation, even if their work is verified in experiment, but if you have a source that says otherwise please provide it.




posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Link
www.nobelprize.org...

It was reported with this
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.

Michel Euler / AP
French physicist Serge Haroche discusses his role in Nobel-winning research during a news conference at the College de France in Paris on Tuesday.
A quantum particle is one that is isolated from everything else. In this situation, an atom or electron or photon takes on strange properties. It can be in two places at once, for example. It behaves in some ways like a wave. But these properties are instantly changed when it interacts with something else, such as when somebody observes it.
Working separately, the two scientists, both 68, developed "ingenious laboratory methods" that allowed them to manage and measure and control fragile quantum states, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said.
"Their ground-breaking methods have enabled this field of research to take the very first steps towards building a new type of superfast computer based on quantum physics," the academy said. "The research has also led to the construction of extremely precise clocks that could become the future basis for a new standard of time."
Background: Nobel-winning physics explained
Haroche is a professor at the College de France and Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris. Wineland is a physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado.
Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
The two researchers use opposite approaches to examine, control and count quantum particles, the academy said. Wineland traps ions — electrically charged atoms — and measures them with light. Haroche controls and measures photons, or light particles, by sending atoms through a specially prepared trap.

Difficult to see from the paper whether the report has overstated the results - what do you think?



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You do know what a quantum detector is?

In these experiments, a detector registers when a measurement occurs. My point is, Bob doesn't need to know when Alice measures her particle in order for the particle to take on a spin state of up or down. Alice is the observer that carries out the measurement on her particle which will cause Bob's particle light years away to take a position of spin up or spin down.

Again, you're acting like Bob has to make a measurement in order for the particle in his device to be in a state of spin up or spin down. When Alice makes a measurement it causes Bob's particle to take a spin state. This is why it's called entanglement.

BOB'S PARTICLE IS ENTANGLED WITH ALICE'S MEASUREMENT.

For instance, in Schrodinger's cat experiment, a Geiger counter detects radiation if an atom decays. In the double slit experiment, a measuring device is turned on to register what slit the particle went through. When Alice measure's her particle, Bob's particle will take a spin state and trigger Bob's device.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Brake
Difficult to see from the paper whether the report has overstated the results - what do you think?
It doesn't support your claim about FTL communication, that's what I think.

The reason quantum computers can be faster is not because they operate faster than light speed, it's because they don't have the limitation of binary computers where each data bit must be a 1 or a 0. This link explains the advantage:

Quantum Computing

In October 2012, Nobel Prizes were presented to David J. Wineland and Serge Haroche for their basic work on understanding the quantum world - work which may eventually help make quantum computing possible.

So I don't think the claim about a superfast computer being possible is overstated and they may have made a contribution toward this end if their work is verified in experiment. But that is not a result of FTL communication, which still remains elusive, even in theoretical models, including theirs, as far as I can tell.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
Again, you're acting like Bob has to make a measurement in order for the particle in his device to be in a state of spin up or spin down. When Alice makes a measurement it causes Bob's particle to take a spin state.



And yet again another reply that completely 100 percent ignores the concerns we've put forward.
So... I'll repeat them yet again.

1. How does Bob know whether or not Alice has made her measurement? (or whether she called in to work sick that day and spent the day home in bed)

2. How does Bob get any information out of this experiment that he doesnt already know in advance?
Bob, like us, already know that its going to be either spin up or down.
The result he gets is either going to be spin up or down.
Your coding for this situation in both examples is "D"
So... why does he need to do anything at all?



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I now see where arb is coming from. How does a quantom detector work? His point is that any device capable of detecting relies on observation, if the device is observing the particle, the particle is measured.

And I assume the counter argument is that they can prearrange a time. I dont know arbs problem with prearranging a time.
edit on 13-5-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
Again, you're acting like Bob has to make a measurement in order for the particle in his device to be in a state of spin up or spin down. When Alice makes a measurement it causes Bob's particle to take a spin state. This is why it's called entanglement.
The last statement is true.
Regarding the first statement, Bob doesn't need to make any measurement or observation of the particle. It will have collapsed into one state or the other as you suggest. But if he doesn't measure or observe the particle, what is the source of the communication?



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I now see where arb is coming from. How does a quantom detector work? His point is that any device capable of detecting relies on observation, if the device is observing the particle, the particle is measured.
Thank goodness someone is getting it.


And I assume the counter argument is that they can prearrange a time. I dont know arbs problem with prearranging a time.
No, neoholographic said nobody suggested that, but I did as the only alternative to using a classical channel. Alfa1 gets it:


Originally posted by alfa1
2. How does Bob get any information out of this experiment that he doesnt already know in advance?
Bob, like us, already know that its going to be either spin up or down.
The result he gets is either going to be spin up or down.
Your coding for this situation in both examples is "D"
So... why does he need to do anything at all?



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


Nope, he's wrong and this isn't how entanglement works.

When Alice makes a measurement on her particle, Bob's particle will take a position of spin up or spin down and his device will detect the measurement.

This occurs all the time and this is why it's called entanglement. This is why Einstein called it spooky action at a distance. It wouldn't be entanglement if Alice;s measurement didn't cause Bob's particle take a spin state.

In entanglement experiments, they entangle a particle pair and one will go left and the other right. If the one that goes left is measured then the one that goes right will register a measurement. They do this all the time with standard quantum detectors.

How else would they know the spin state of an electron without a detector?

So to say Bob has to know when Alice measures her particle makes no sense. His device will detect a measurement just like standard quantum detectors have been doing for years.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
When Alice makes a measurement on her particle, Bob's particle will take a position of spin up or spin down and his device will detect the measurement.

So to say Bob has to know when Alice measures her particle makes no sense. His device will detect a measurement just like standard quantum detectors have been doing for years.



It doesnt work that way.
You seem to think that there is some kind of magical device that keeps monitoring the particle, and then DING!! an alarm will go off when it "take a position of spin up or spin down".

No such magical device exists.

There is no device that will "detect" the moment a particles quantum arangement is set.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Yes, it does work this way.

It wouldn't be called entanglement if Alice's measurement didn't cause Bob's particle to go into a spin state that can be detected?

What do you think D1 or D2 means in these experiments?

It means Detector.

How else do you think a sub atomic particles state is measured LOL???



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1
It doesnt work that way.
You seem to think that there is some kind of magical device that keeps monitoring the particle, and then DING!! an alarm will go off when it "take a position of spin up or spin down".

No such magical device exists.

There is no device that will "detect" the moment a particles quantum arangement is set.
Yes.


Originally posted by neoholographic
How else would they know the spin state of an electron without a detector?
Alice knows the state of the entangled particle on Bobs end, after she makes her measurement. She doesn't need a detector on Bob's end to know the state of Bob's particle. She knows the pair is entangled so she knows the state at Bob's end after she makes her own measurement.

It's Bob who doesn't know. Yes his particle has collapsed when Alice made her measurement. But he doesn't know it. How could he? Not observing the particle doesn't tell him anything.

I studied advanced quantum mechanics in post-graduate-level coursework at a major university, so please stop thinking I don't know the subject. I know it far better than most people who haven't taken such courses.
edit on 14-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I don't know how many times I have to say this...

WRONG

If Bob had to make an observation, then it wouldn't be entanglement. You could just say Bob caused a measurement to occur.

The reason Einstein called it spooky action at a distance is because a measurement on one causes a measurement to occur on the other.

Bob's device can register when his particle takes a spin state of up or down.

Do you know how these experiments work?

The only thing that's being observed is if the detector in the experiments registered a measurement.

Bob doesn't have to know when Alice makes a measurement in order for his particle to register a spin state. That makes no sense. Nobody would even talk about entanglement if this was the case because Bob could be the cause of his particle taking a spin state and not Alice and that would be..kind of stupid.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
Bob's device can register when his particle takes a spin state of up or down.
I've already asked this before to ImaFungi, and he didn't have an answer, so I repeat the question for you: How, exactly does this happen? Provide sources, specifics on exactly which experiment and which detector does this.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic

When Alice makes a measurement on her particle, Bob's particle will take a position of spin up or spin down and his device will detect the measurement.


In what manner will the device detect the measurement? This is the crux of the problem, this is the same reason in the double slit experiment detection messes with the experiment, because a device that is detecting is observing, and when an entangled particle is observed its wave function is collapsed. so if bobs particle is in a device capable of detecting the particle, and the device is turned on, the device will be observing the particle, collapsing its function.


I personally dont know how standard quantum detectors work. Can you explain the mechanism that allows the device to detect the collapse of a particle via the measurement of its entangled partner, without collapsing its wavefunction via its ability of detection?



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I personally dont know how standard quantum detectors work. Can you explain the mechanism that allows the device to detect the collapse of a particle via the measurement of its entangled partner, without collapsing its wavefunction via its ability of detection?


Nail hit firmly on the head Fungi!

And it is likely nature will always prevent information transmission speed greater than C even if we have mastered weak measurements.
edit on 14-5-2013 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There's several ways this can happen. You have a Geiger counter that can detect radiation when an atom decays. A light source that emits photons. A magnetic moment when the particle interacts with an external magnetic field. A SPLEED which is a spin-polarization detector and other ways.

How do you think these experiments work without a detector LOL???



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There's several ways this can happen. You have a Geiger counter that can detect radiation when an atom decays. A light source that emits photons. A magnetic moment when the particle interacts with an external magnetic field. A SPLEED which is a spin-polarization detector and other ways.

How do you think these experiments work without a detector LOL???


That doesn't answer his question. He asked what detector can detect the entanglement collapse without itself collapsing the entanglement.
edit on 14-5-2013 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe
 


Sure it does. Do you need me to carry out the experiment for you.

What is it you don't understand??



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe
 


You said:


That doesn't answer his question. He asked what detector can detect the entanglement collapse without itself collapsing the entanglement.


What is this the Cat and the Hat Nursery rhyme LOL??

When you say detect the entanglement what do you mean?





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join