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.

 

Is faster than light communication possible? Yes

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
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...




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

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.



Ok i watched the video and demand that 10 min back of my life this guy is an idiot and clueless. Has dealing with lasers and he believes you can use magic to make entangled pairs.In his diagram they magically come through his slit entangled he didn't bother to research how that's done. Next he makes the assumption that frequency gets lower by half in an entangled pair it does not. I believe he's confusing energy with frequency but not sure in an entangled pair energy is cut in half your splitting the laser and as a result the wavelength doubles. Then he somehow believes that bouncing half the photons off a mirror and letting half pass through somehow tells you anything? Clueless on this one all you'll see is two beams from the laser it will look cool however. And finally splitting a laser doesn't guarantee entangled pairs odds are still low this occurs say I don't know one in a million but you won't know this unless you detect it. This is nothing more than bouncing lasers around in a box and again he's an idiot. As for you please explain how you would capture these entangled pairs and stop time to transport them? Photons dont sit still ever we can slow them down but not enough to store them for a 9 month trip to mars for example. Look i aplaud your thinking outside the box but you dont understand what entanglement is.Id say its very safe to say unless some unknown science shows up like experiments with say gravity its safe to assume its near impossible for entangled pairs to give you any useful information.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
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


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.
So, we have the same problem we had in other experiments, which is this:

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.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

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


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.
So, we have the same problem we had in other experiments, which is this:

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.


Well there is always things that have not been tried that can lead to new research but trust me this guy in this video is in way over his head.He thinks he has an understanding but in truth it comes out gibberish because he lacks any knowledge of physics and obviously picked up this off he internet. Did i say hes an idiot by the way ok ill stop. First he didn't understand even basic physics now I see what you mean the problem goes though if I'm understanding where your going it would all look like random information until we can verify other wise so we would have to send a signal to verify the results which would be different everytime because waveforms are random. The only way this could work is if we are wrong and they are not random but actually conform to some law we are not aware of. So ill say plausible but unlikely feel like the myth busters lol. But since i hadnt thought of this i will look inot it later this week just to make sure im not missing something.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

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


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.
So, we have the same problem we had in other experiments, which is this:

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.


Well there is always things that have not been tried that can lead to new research but trust me this guy in this video is in way over his head.He thinks he has an understanding but in truth it comes out gibberish because he lacks any knowledge of physics and obviously picked up this off he internet. Did i say hes an idiot by the way ok ill stop. First he didn't understand even basic physics now I see what you mean the problem goes though if I'm understanding where your going it would all look like random information until we can verify other wise so we would have to send a signal to verify the results which would be different everytime because waveforms are random. The only way this could work is if we are wrong and they are not random but actually conform to some law we are not aware of. So ill say plausible but unlikely feel like the myth busters lol. But since i hadnt thought of this i will look inot it later this week just to make sure im not missing something.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Reply to post by Arbitrageur


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.


Maybe if you type slower, I will be able to understand the problem with what I have suggested.
Are you saying that the pair of a photon, that has been observed and therefore is travelling as a particle, would not also be travelling as a photon? There is more guts to the suggestion then I have so far expressed, like the numbers of photons that could fit in a M3 is a number to the power of 17 (lots) and a coding system that uses the photons as coordinates for a message contained in a three dimensional space.

Thought I would start with the basic spooky property itself - have I got this wrong? Observation breaks the wave form as expressed in the double slit experiment? If this observed photon has a pair this photon I think must also, after this observation, be travelling as a particle.

So given this, what is wrong with using many double slit experiments in order to find the photons travelling as particles? At this point we are not observing the photons but none the less can collect any that form the main two bands in the wave form. If you are saying that the wave forms are not uniform enough - well the truly weird will also partly be in wave forms so they will not be included in the two bands collected. The rest will be included with the collected particles and decoded.

Yes this maybe a very large number, but I know something that you do not - I've done the math on how far we can code with such a large language as is possible here. We can order and link the separate messages suggested by the photons so that their can only be one combination of photons that can deliver a coherent message.

You do agree that the pairs of the observed photons would be included in the final group yes?
edit on 21-5-2013 by Peter Brake because: The reply to post by Arbitrageur has not been highlighted



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

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?
I think one main problem with your idea was pointed out by dragonrdr here:

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.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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?
I think one main problem with your idea was pointed out by dragonrdr here:

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.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Brake

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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?
I think one main problem with your idea was pointed out by dragonrdr here:

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.


Ok light behaves as a wave and a particle as we all know light travel in a state called a wave function this is diffrent the a wave. A wave fuction is any possibility that a photon can come as we know not set until observed.Now we have 2 entangled photons traveling along as a wave and a wave function. we see one coming take a measurement the other one was just to fast speed of light is really fast. Now we can assume because they are entangled pairs and will have the same properties. but looking at them all we saw no diffrence between them any any other photon in the universe. Now there is a trick you can use sort of and it works like this i measure my photon and i send that information to you. Knowing the properties of the photon you then can then extrapilate that out to show which one and its behavior. This is Quantum teleporting but you cant do this unless you measured a particle and sent the information.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr



Ok light behaves as a wave and a particle as we all know light travel in a state called a wave function this is diffrent the a wave. A wave fuction is any possibility that a photon can come as we know not set until observed.Now we have 2 entangled photons traveling along as a wave and a wave function. we see one coming take a measurement the other one was just to fast speed of light is really fast. Now we can assume because they are entangled pairs and will have the same properties. but looking at them all we saw no diffrence between them any any other photon in the universe. Now there is a trick you can use sort of and it works like this i measure my photon and i send that information to you. Knowing the properties of the photon you then can then extrapilate that out to show which one and its behavior. This is Quantum teleporting but you cant do this unless you measured a particle and sent the information.

I can see that you have read some of the material regarding this, but perhaps you skipped the actual theory. Have a read of Bells Theorem, this is the original theory of electron pairs action no matter at what distance they are apart. Or look up Spooky in particle physics. The whole point is that this is the only thing known to beat local causality, or the speed of light.

Link: en.wikipedia.org...'s_theorem



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

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.
Alice makes a measurement. If the pair is entangled then she instantly knows that if Bob makes a measurement, it will reflect the entanglement.

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."


Please show me the publications that say otherwise.
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.

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.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.
Alice makes a measurement. If the pair is entangled then she instantly knows that if Bob makes a measurement, it will reflect the entanglement.

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."


Please show me the publications that say otherwise.
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.

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.



Look I do know and have read the article that you are referring to. This thread is about the method used that doesn't need orthodox communication.

So every Friday at 5 o'clock Bob channels the photons through a series of double clits until he only has the well defined two lines (the photons travelling as particles) He then asks his computers which photons they were in the sequence that he fired, and decodes the message that is contained within them.

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.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   

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.
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:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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.
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.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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.



Agreed


Besides sending a message on a superluminal capable starship...the only other probable method of faster than light communication is mental telepathy.

Take an anology: As in the movie "Star Wars"...when Obi Wan senses that a "terrible thing has happened, as if millions of voices cried out in sheer terror all at once." It's probably not voices involved in mental telepathy between vast distances, but negative or positive thoughts that instill a meaning of communication as in thought projection.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

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.



physics!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Brake
The wave form has collapsed in both photons in the moment that one is measured.
No.

Dragonridr is talking about wave function, not wave form. The wave function of photon 2 has been CHANGED when you measure the spin of photon 1, and the change is such that if you measure the spin of photon 2 it will reflect the entanglement, perhaps instantaneously. But the wave function hasn't collapsed completely on photon 2 just because you measured photon 1. You could say there's a "convergence" of the wave function, or you might even call it a partial collapse, but it hasn't fully collapsed to perform as you suggest in the double slit experiment example.

This may be over your head if you don't know the difference between wave form and wave function, but this is the way Einstein described it:

www.pitt.edu...

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.
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.

If you don't believe this, I'd be delighted to see you win a Nobel prize when you demonstrate FTL communication is possible without a classical communication channel to make the communication useful.

Also I don't know why you're suggesting we don't understand Bell's theorem, I haven't seen anyone deny that information is transmitted faster than light. Seems like we all agree on that, including Michio Kaku, but as he said this doesn't mean you can send a "love letter" faster than light.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join