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 Peter Brake
reply to post by Arbitrageur
If we were to entangle say 2 Million photons, and sent one half of the pairs to Mars. The apparatus required to receive a message would have the ability to track the sequence that the photons are continuously travelling in. Also we will need two slits and a board.
On earth the message we send is coded in say 50 photons, (of the 1 million available) We look at the 50 photons here therefore removing their wave function and crash them into a particle state. The nice wave function from the photons on Mars instantly is corrupted with determined particles.
We take the probable (defined two slits) photons and place them with other suspect particle photons and send them back through the slits. After many further tests hopefully we can, isolate the 50 particles and given the tracking we can read what they signify. Message received
If you were to argue that we couldn’t isolate just the particle photons I will bet you that we can codify the message so that links can be found from one part of the message to the next so that we can be sure that the correct message has been received.
Feel free to ask me how...
Originally posted by dragonridr
.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by Arbitrageur
If we were to entangle say 2 Million photons, and sent one half of the pairs to Mars. The apparatus required to receive a message would have the ability to track the sequence that the photons are continuously travelling in. Also we will need two slits and a board.
On earth the message we send is coded in say 50 photons, (of the 1 million available) We look at the 50 photons here therefore removing their wave function and crash them into a particle state. The nice wave function from the photons on Mars instantly is corrupted with determined particles.
We take the probable (defined two slits) photons and place them with other suspect particle photons and send them back through the slits. After many further tests hopefully we can, isolate the 50 particles and given the tracking we can read what they signify. Message received
If you were to argue that we couldn’t isolate just the particle photons I will bet you that we can codify the message so that links can be found from one part of the message to the next so that we can be sure that the correct message has been received.
Feel free to ask me how...
There is a lot wrong hear 1st your communication is restricted to the speed of light in your narative by sending signal to mars. Next just because you measure 1 entangled partice doesn't make the oither magically jusmp out of its wave function because that would be cool and usefull. To the particle nothing changes untuil its measured and needs to choose from its posibilities to one posibility.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
Originally posted by dragonridr
.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by Arbitrageur
If we were to entangle say 2 Million photons, and sent one half of the pairs to Mars. The apparatus required to receive a message would have the ability to track the sequence that the photons are continuously travelling in. Also we will need two slits and a board.
On earth the message we send is coded in say 50 photons, (of the 1 million available) We look at the 50 photons here therefore removing their wave function and crash them into a particle state. The nice wave function from the photons on Mars instantly is corrupted with determined particles.
We take the probable (defined two slits) photons and place them with other suspect particle photons and send them back through the slits. After many further tests hopefully we can, isolate the 50 particles and given the tracking we can read what they signify. Message received
If you were to argue that we couldn’t isolate just the particle photons I will bet you that we can codify the message so that links can be found from one part of the message to the next so that we can be sure that the correct message has been received.
Feel free to ask me how...
There is a lot wrong hear 1st your communication is restricted to the speed of light in your narative by sending signal to mars. Next just because you measure 1 entangled partice doesn't make the oither magically jusmp out of its wave function because that would be cool and usefull. To the particle nothing changes untuil its measured and needs to choose from its posibilities to one posibility.
What?
Sending signal to Mars?? The photons are sent on the next ship to Mars so this is the communication with Mars after they have arrived. I'm not sending signals we are looking at photon states - hey and this science has been done.
Link
www.youtube.com...
Viewing one of a photon pair determines the state of the other (right?) therefore it expresses as a particle. What I have said above is a workable instantaneous communication device.
So, we have the same problem we had in other experiments, which is this:
The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference, so it is not possible to deduce what will happen to the idler photons by observing the signal photons alone, which would open up the possibility of gaining information faster-than-light (since one might deduce this information before there had been time for a message moving at the speed of light to travel from the idler detector to the signal photon detector) or even gaining information about the future (since as noted above, the signal photons may be detected at an earlier time than the idlers), both of which would qualify as violations of causality in physics. The apparatus under discussion here could not communicate information in a retro-causal manner because it takes another signal, one which must arrive via a process that can go no faster than the speed of light, to sort the superimposed data in the signal photons into four streams that reflect the states of the idler photons at their four distinct detection screens.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Peter Brake
reply to post by dragonridr
This is interesting because I actually wrote a reply talking about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment in response to Yampa's post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
But I decided not to post the reply because nobody had mentioned it.
Then Peter Brake brought it up.
I admit that the guy in the video has a "painter" something nick and doesn't seem to be a physicist, and points us to the lame "What the bleep do we know" video about the double slit experiment which is the very video I created a thread to criticize. So he's slightly clueless, but not as completely clueless as what dragonridr says.
It's actually an interesting experiment and a lot of what he says is true, like the function of the BBO that dragonridr doesn't seem to believe. But his accuracy rate is beside the main point, which is this:
While it's an interesting experiment, and some physicists think it holds some prospects for FTL communication, such FTL communication has not yet been demonstrated with this (or any other) experiment:
The main stumbling block for using retrocausality to communicate information
So, we have the same problem we had in other experiments, which is this:
The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference, so it is not possible to deduce what will happen to the idler photons by observing the signal photons alone, which would open up the possibility of gaining information faster-than-light (since one might deduce this information before there had been time for a message moving at the speed of light to travel from the idler detector to the signal photon detector) or even gaining information about the future (since as noted above, the signal photons may be detected at an earlier time than the idlers), both of which would qualify as violations of causality in physics. The apparatus under discussion here could not communicate information in a retro-causal manner because it takes another signal, one which must arrive via a process that can go no faster than the speed of light, to sort the superimposed data in the signal photons into four streams that reflect the states of the idler photons at their four distinct detection screens.
Information is transmitted faster than light, but we can't interpret that information until a classical communication channel (light speed or less) makes the information useful.
So as my original reply said that I never posted, this is an interesting area of research, which may hold some potential for FTL communication, but no such capability has been demonstrated before. As that link says there's even theorem about why it never will produce FTL communication but of course one way to prove the theorem false would be to actually communicate faster than light, and I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying, because there's no way I know of to prove it's impossible, but I don't hold high hopes for successful FTL communication.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Peter Brake
reply to post by dragonridr
This is interesting because I actually wrote a reply talking about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment in response to Yampa's post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
But I decided not to post the reply because nobody had mentioned it.
Then Peter Brake brought it up.
I admit that the guy in the video has a "painter" something nick and doesn't seem to be a physicist, and points us to the lame "What the bleep do we know" video about the double slit experiment which is the very video I created a thread to criticize. So he's slightly clueless, but not as completely clueless as what dragonridr says.
It's actually an interesting experiment and a lot of what he says is true, like the function of the BBO that dragonridr doesn't seem to believe. But his accuracy rate is beside the main point, which is this:
While it's an interesting experiment, and some physicists think it holds some prospects for FTL communication, such FTL communication has not yet been demonstrated with this (or any other) experiment:
The main stumbling block for using retrocausality to communicate information
So, we have the same problem we had in other experiments, which is this:
The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference, so it is not possible to deduce what will happen to the idler photons by observing the signal photons alone, which would open up the possibility of gaining information faster-than-light (since one might deduce this information before there had been time for a message moving at the speed of light to travel from the idler detector to the signal photon detector) or even gaining information about the future (since as noted above, the signal photons may be detected at an earlier time than the idlers), both of which would qualify as violations of causality in physics. The apparatus under discussion here could not communicate information in a retro-causal manner because it takes another signal, one which must arrive via a process that can go no faster than the speed of light, to sort the superimposed data in the signal photons into four streams that reflect the states of the idler photons at their four distinct detection screens.
Information is transmitted faster than light, but we can't interpret that information until a classical communication channel (light speed or less) makes the information useful.
So as my original reply said that I never posted, this is an interesting area of research, which may hold some potential for FTL communication, but no such capability has been demonstrated before. As that link says there's even theorem about why it never will produce FTL communication but of course one way to prove the theorem false would be to actually communicate faster than light, and I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying, because there's no way I know of to prove it's impossible, but I don't hold high hopes for successful FTL communication.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Information is transmitted faster than light, but we can't interpret that information until a classical communication channel (light speed or less) makes the information useful.
So as my original reply said that I never posted, this is an interesting area of research, which may hold some potential for FTL communication, but no such capability has been demonstrated before. As that link says there's even theorem about why it never will produce FTL communication but of course one way to prove the theorem false would be to actually communicate faster than light, and I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying, because there's no way I know of to prove it's impossible, but I don't hold high hopes for successful FTL communication.
I think one main problem with your idea was pointed out by dragonrdr here:
Originally posted by Peter Brake
So given this, what is wrong with using many double slit experiments in order to find the photons travelling as particles?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think one main problem with your idea was pointed out by dragonrdr here:
Originally posted by Peter Brake
So given this, what is wrong with using many double slit experiments in order to find the photons travelling as particles?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My challenge to you is to find someone who has already done it, or if you think you have a way that nobody else has thought of that will work, do it and you will probably get a Nobel prize. I'm not saying it's impossible to think of something nobody else has thought of before, but on the other hand many of the smartest minds on the planet have been trying to figure out how to do this for 80 years, so at the very least it's pretty ambitious to think your method will succeed where all these very smart scientists have failed to demonstrate FTL communication.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think one main problem with your idea was pointed out by dragonrdr here:
Originally posted by Peter Brake
So given this, what is wrong with using many double slit experiments in order to find the photons travelling as particles?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My challenge to you is to find someone who has already done it, or if you think you have a way that nobody else has thought of that will work, do it and you will probably get a Nobel prize. I'm not saying it's impossible to think of something nobody else has thought of before, but on the other hand many of the smartest minds on the planet have been trying to figure out how to do this for 80 years, so at the very least it's pretty ambitious to think your method will succeed where all these very smart scientists have failed to demonstrate FTL communication.
You think this is a fair description of the problem? Where specifically? I really don't see it.
There is a lot wrong hear 1st your communication is restricted to the speed of light in your narative by sending signal to mars. Next just because you measure 1 entangled partice doesn't make the oither magically jusmp out of its wave function because that would be cool and usefull. To the particle nothing changes untuil its measured and needs to choose from its posibilities to one posibility.
My communication is not restricted to the speed of light, Quantum entanglement acts instantly. The whole point being made is that if you know what one of a pair of entangled photons is, then you do know what the state of the other one is. Given that it to is known then yes it is instantly no longer in a wave function. All the literature agrees with this. Please show me the publications that say otherwise.
The particle has been measured as its entangled partner has been observed.
Originally posted by dragonridr
Alice makes a measurement. If the pair is entangled then she instantly knows that if Bob makes a measurement, it will reflect the entanglement.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
My communication is not restricted to the speed of light, Quantum entanglement acts instantly. The whole point being made is that if you know what one of a pair of entangled photons is, then you do know what the state of the other one is.
No plausible literature I've seen describes a FTL communication experiment. They all require a classical (speed of light or less) communication channel, to interpret the information that was received faster than light.
Please show me the publications that say otherwise.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Alice makes a measurement. If the pair is entangled then she instantly knows that if Bob makes a measurement, it will reflect the entanglement.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
My communication is not restricted to the speed of light, Quantum entanglement acts instantly. The whole point being made is that if you know what one of a pair of entangled photons is, then you do know what the state of the other one is.
So one could say this information is transmitted faster than light, perhaps instantaneously.
The problem is, Bob doesn't know that this instantaneous transfer occurred at the time it occurred. He requires a classical communication channel to tell him what Alice did, after which point he can then say "aha, a second ago I got FTL information from Alice, though I didn't know it at the time, since I just found out what Alice did, at the speed of light."
No plausible literature I've seen describes a FTL communication experiment. They all require a classical (speed of light or less) communication channel, to interpret the information that was received faster than light.
Please show me the publications that say otherwise.
If you feel otherwise, it's up to you to provide the source. That's what has been requested for this entire thread, is any source showing FTL communication, and none has been provided, probably because it doesn't exist.
So, barring you pulling a rabbit out of a hat and finding such a source, you're basically going to have to win your Nobel prize to convince us, when you are the first person ever to demonstrate FTL communication of any useful information which does not require a classical (light speed or less) communication channel to interpret it.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
You have just read the source - this is the only place that it has been published. Now tell me where I am wrong.
If Friday at 5 O'clock is cumbersome consider performing the test every ten minutes, or one minute or every second. This is designed to be an instant communication line, and Bob will be replying with his end of the discussion by observing the correct photons on Mars that spells out the message to Alice on Earth.
If you read the latest post in isolation I can see why you'd suspect that, but, I don't think you can read the latest post in isolation, so I don't think that's the problem, because he's talking about entangled photons, not unentangled ones (actually both, as produced by the experimental apparatus, but he expects the entangled photons to behave differently in the double slit experiment if Alice measured their entangled partner). You have to read this earlier post at the top of page 9:
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
I think you are confusing an entanglement wave function with wave / particle duality. They aren't the same thing. An unentangled photon is just a photon and will behave like a 'normal' photon in a dual slit experiment.
As I already stated, dragonridr's post immediately following that post at the top of page 9 explains the problem with the idea, and it's pretty simply stated so I don't know why you don't get it. You seem unable or unwilling to either understand or accept the answer, so this leaves us with the only alternative of you proving it with your Nobel prize.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
You have just read the source - this is the only place that it has been published. Now tell me where I am wrong.
Originally posted by JayinAR
For the record, I firmly believe FTL travel is possible. Why? Tesla said so.
Also, there is no other way to explain how ET gets here.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by Arbitrageur
There is a lot wrong hear 1st your communication is restricted to the speed of light in your narative by sending signal to mars. Next just because you measure 1 entangled partice doesn't make the oither magically jusmp out of its wave function because that would be cool and usefull. To the particle nothing changes untuil its measured and needs to choose from its posibilities to one posibility.
Okay let brakr this down
There is a lot wrong hear 1st your communication is restricted to the speed of light in your narative by sending signal to mars.
I haven't sent a signal to Mars.
Next just because you measure 1 entangled partice doesn't make the oither magically jusmp out of its wave function because that would be cool and usefull.
This is wrong, the very basis of Bells theorem, and Einstein's spooky action at a distance is this. You are concentrating on the spin or orientation is what is known of the photon pair, and are thinking that this is a nice theoretical abstraction. This is an action - something actually happens hence it is called spooky action at a distance. The wave form has collapsed in both photons in the moment that one is measured.
Please reread your sources with this idea in mind - you will find it as I have in every source. Give me one that says different.
To the particle nothing changes untuil its measured and needs to choose from its posibilities to one posibility.
Again this is the very principle the pair of the photon does not know that has been separated, and when the other is measured it to is measured.
No.
Originally posted by Peter Brake
The wave form has collapsed in both photons in the moment that one is measured.
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.