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.

 

On the Verge: Faster than the Speed of Light Computing

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
In the world of information, speed is king. The more data you can send, and the faster you can get to to it's destination, the more power you have.

Currently, the speed of light is the barrier. The speed of light through a vacuum is defined as C in the equation E=MC^2 The speed of light slows down depending on what material light waves, or electricity signals are sent through.

Traditional data send methods are limited by the materials they send the data through. In your standard WiFi connection you are sending radio waves through the air, each of which must be verified that they are from the appropriate source and decrypted to use. They are the slowest form of communications from Infrared to Bluetooth, to WiFi, to 3G, to 4G LTE they all require processing to make sure the destination is correct, the source is correct, and the information is verified.

The next fastest current technology is the old silver standard. Metal. Sending data through electric currents has been used since Alexander Bell sending the first message on the telegraph using this method, "I can't come to the telegraph right now I am in the laboratory!" Not the first message but it would have been funny because this method requires the same validation that he said laboratory and not lavatory. We use metal conductors for everything from electrical power, to land line telephones, to super computer microprocessors, most of them.

Some super computer microprocessors use newer technology. They use the latest and greatest fiber optic processing technology. Using visible light through solid materials that shine light through them seems to be the fastest way to send light through a given space and requires the least validation. More research is to be done on this subject.

Quantum communications refers to the new technology where the speed of light is no longer the barrier. Consider Star trek and teleportation. A nice dream but it may be possible to use this idea to represent quantum communications. While it may be millennium before we achieve a Star trek dream of beaming my cup of coffee from the kitchen to this computer but it may be possible to send energy and information without regards to space and thus without regards to C or the speed of light.

Quantum entanglement states that for every particle there are two basic given states, referred to as the eigen states of velocity and position. Velocity and position get broken down into many different vectors such as velocity along the X axis, Y axis, Spin... etc. When one eigen state is measured, the other is unknown in conventional physics. In quantum physics when one is measured the other is assumed to some degree. Quantum entanglement is the calculation of the second eigen state being guessed correctly based on the relative degree of the other state, as well as the states of the particles around it, the environment.

We have been performing quantum entanglement experiments in labs for decades now. All the experiments have either been shown that they did not have enough data or that they supported evidence for quantum entanglement. While quantum entanglement is as theory, so is evolution. Recently, there has been an experiment for entangling spin on two separate diamonds placed centimeters apart that has been successful. It proves entanglement between two separate masses, without regard to distance can be shown to have the exact same values for spin and correlate that one causes the other to change is the environments are exactly the same.
www.ox.ac.uk...

Diamonds can be fabricated and this will give us plenty of cheap materials to work with at room temperature quantum entanglement experiments for quantum communications.
storage.globalcitizen.net...

How can quantum entanglement of spin help us communicate? Simple. For each measurement taken the energy dissapates, as there is no energy added or subtracted from the equation so we can not get energy out of nothing. But there is a measurement of measurement. You know if a measurement is taken from one by observing the other. It can be detected with lasers. So with the new advancement in perovskites we can create these lasers on a micro level and use solar energy to power their mesaurement devices.
news.sciencemag.org...

They do require beam splitting crystals provide non-linear optic paths. Thankfully the hozion is here for them as well.
www.opticsinfobase.org...

Now how can the measurements be used? The quantum spin causes vibrations in a quantum particle call a qubit. Theese qubits can conduct electricity and create inductive pathways for electrons to absorb into and create electricity. This link is golden as it is not yet published.
physinfo.fr...

These electrical vibrations can be enhanced using nano piezoelectric generators, the same piezoelectric generators that old speakers use.
www.s.kanazawa-u.ac.jp...

And this transforms into a Star trek thesis when you think about how it is effecting the universe as a "Hole"!
news.sciencemag.org...

We are on the verge of faster than light transference of information.
Quantum computing allows for it. The materials are there. It will only be a small amount of time before this is picked up by IBM or whoever has the ten million dollars for research.




posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ChefSlug
 


Wow, this is interesting. FTL computing is something, but when will organic material such as people be able to be turned into information and thus beamed, etc?



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I'm confident quantum entanglement cannot be used for FTL communication, since I've read a lot on the topic, and while I do not understand the science, I know they have eliminated it as a possibility. I've read they intend on using entanglement for encrypting information. As for teleportation, it would not be faster than light because the information that represents an object would still have to be sent conventionally to the receiver to enable the instantaneous teleportation.

It seems to me some laws of physics will have to be rewritten for FTL communication to come into being. This means anything of meaningful value cannot exceed light speed. Nature may do some things faster than light - like the expansion of the universe - but we can't harness it, as we exist within speed of light constraints.

Which makes me think of the Alcubierre warp drive. If it were to be realized then would it not be an example of FTL communication? The information wouldn't technically be exceeding the light speed limit since space/time is warped. However, when they arrive at their destination, it seems they could look behind them and see a record of their travel before they entered into the warp. I've read recently the energy requirements have been greatly lessened for this. However, I've also read the occupants and everything would be destroyed at the destination.
edit on 20-12-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

jonnywhite
I'm confident quantum entanglement cannot be used for FTL communication, since I've read a lot on the topic, and while I do not understand the science, I know they have eliminated it as a possibility.


Correct.

Quantum entanglement can not convey information faster than the speed of light because the information encoded in entanglement is only extractable when you look at correlations between measurements on both the entangled systems. So to access that correlation information, you would need communication anyway, and that communication could not be FTL. If you only look at either system, but not the other, then you need no such communication, but you also can extract no information from the entanglement.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

JadeStar

jonnywhite
I'm confident quantum entanglement cannot be used for FTL communication, since I've read a lot on the topic, and while I do not understand the science, I know they have eliminated it as a possibility.


Correct.

Quantum entanglement can not convey information faster than the speed of light because the information encoded in entanglement is only extractable when you look at correlations between measurements on both the entangled systems. So to access that correlation information, you would need communication anyway, and that communication could not be FTL. If you only look at either system, but not the other, then you need no such communication, but you also can extract no information from the entanglement.


Can you not build predictive models of the interactions?



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

boncho

JadeStar

jonnywhite
I'm confident quantum entanglement cannot be used for FTL communication, since I've read a lot on the topic, and while I do not understand the science, I know they have eliminated it as a possibility.


Correct.

Quantum entanglement can not convey information faster than the speed of light because the information encoded in entanglement is only extractable when you look at correlations between measurements on both the entangled systems. So to access that correlation information, you would need communication anyway, and that communication could not be FTL. If you only look at either system, but not the other, then you need no such communication, but you also can extract no information from the entanglement.


Can you not build predictive models of the interactions?


You can but that would not be communication either.

Its like creating a random number generator and assuming that the random number which came up is the same as a random number generator 100 light years away.

Thats not communication.
edit on 20-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


But you can make infereences from one measurement at one end to the result at the other end. The communication possible is one way.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
QE would require transmitting information at normal speeds to make use of the QE. What I wonder is if you only need to do this once perhaps, and then each subsequent message would no longer require traveling at normal speeds.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Don't we already have data transmission and confirmation protocols already in place that confirm receipt of data?

There's the simple handshake methodology we used back with dial-up modems, and TCP, UDP, and all the other fun stuff we use currently to ensure minimization of packet loss.
Saying we'd need observe both the endpoints of the 'conversation' to ensure communication sounds almost like I need to run directly over to your house, wherever that might be, and physically observe you reading this message, to absolutely confirm transmission and receipt.

I'm fairly certain we've protocols already in place for confirmation of transmission and receipt of data.
This would, of course, require at least half-duplex two-way communication, regardless the distance, whether light years, or next room over.

We then get into multiplexing of data streams where bandwidth increases as far as volumes of data capable of being sent and received all at once.




posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Don't we already have data transmission and confirmation protocols already in place that confirm receipt of data?


Yes. But again that confirmation could not be delivered faster than light because it would rely on normal electromagnetic transmission, either radio, lasers, etc.



There's the simple handshake methodology we used back with dial-up modems, and TCP, UDP, and all the other fun stuff we use currently to ensure minimization of packet loss.
Saying we'd need observe both the endpoints of the 'conversation' to ensure communication sounds almost like I need to run directly over to your house, wherever that might be, and physically observe you reading this message, to absolutely confirm transmission and receipt.

I'm fairly certain we've protocols already in place for confirmation of transmission and receipt of data.
This would, of course, require at least half-duplex two-way communication, regardless the distance, whether light years, or next room over.


The problem is that neither side of the conversation would know a conversation is going on at all unless that information was conveyed.

In order for the entangled information to be decoded that measurement could not take place faster than the speed of light.


To use your modem reference.. Both modems are unaware there is any connection between them until they are told that there is. Telling them that there is can't happen faster than the speed of light.

That's a really bad analogy but then comparing quantum entanglement to modems sets that up because they are so different from each other.


edit on 21-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04
QE would require transmitting information at normal speeds to make use of the QE. What I wonder is if you only need to do this once perhaps, and then each subsequent message would no longer require traveling at normal speeds.


Nope. It has to be done every time a qubit is encoded.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


But the decoding of the information doesn't have to be faster than the speed of light, that's not what is important is it?

The distance travelled faster than light is the important aspect surely?...the local decoding and or encoding can be done at conventional speeds (still only fractions of a second) and sent and recieved at FTL speeds, even the acks can be sent at FTL using a piggy backed, specific quantum key designed such that it's changed state, (no longer quantum) once arrived at it's target, can be used as a flag.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   

MysterX
reply to post by JadeStar
 

The distance travelled faster than light is the important aspect surely?...the local decoding and or encoding can be done at conventional speeds (still only fractions of a second)

When you are 100 light years away it's more than a fraction of a second. More like 3 billion seconds.

To be clear, the decoding can only be done with information sent from the source. It can not be done locally.
edit on 21-12-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


But if there is a time set up for both ends to know there is a conversation set up, would it be possible to communicate without confirmation?



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
You can make the bits as fast as you want, but you're overlooking one thing, its still binary. If counting by 2 was so efficient, we wouldn't have created a base 10 system. There are still a few primitive cultures out there that still count by two, and see where they live, in the woods. With todays technology there can be shades of gray between the on and off state. So instead of 0 and 1, you could have a 0,1 and 2, or a 0 and 1-10. There's no reason a single bit couldn't be like a column on an abacus. Most will say a transistor can only be on or off and hence only 2 states, but you can have more, lots more. You increase the number of possibility states between off and on and your computational power increases exponentially by orders of magnitude. Even a trinary based computer could beat the brains out of the best computers we have today just because of that extra bit state and nothing more.

Look at desktops today. They stopped adding speed to the processor and just started adding more processors to increase the computational power of the desktop. There's one more way to extend that power without going into the land of FTL computing, if there is such a thing, and that is to extend the number of bit states per bit. Then you would need an elegant OS to handle all that power, which would be a whole other kettle of fish.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by CAPT PROTON
 


You have a misunderstanding as to why binary is used in computers. There is a very good reason why electronic architectures use binary rather than other bases. At the hardware level, binary is used (rather than other number bases) because it is simple and robust to implement and has the highest signal to noise compared to electronic circuits detecting a range of values.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
By the way qubits have 3 states not 2.

Here's a better explanation why quantum entanglement can't be used for communication today:


According to a common interpretation of quantum mechanics, both photons are in indeterminate states until you measure them. It is important to make this distinction: it’s not simply that you don’t know what the polarization of each photon is until you measure it; instead, the polarization does not take on a definite value until you measure it. No matter how far apart they are, when the polarization of one photon is determined by a measurement, somehow the other photon instantaneously “knows” the outcome and will always be found to be vibrating in a perpendicular direction.

Now, that’s pretty cool – but it can’t really be used for faster-than-light communication purposes for the simple reason that we cannot control the polarization of the entangled particles. And while it may seem that the two photons are able to communicate with each other in some way, we have no idea how.


Short and sweet:


"Instantaneous communication by means of quantum entanglement is actually impossible because neither side can manipulate the state of the entangled particles, they can only measure it (see No-communication theorem). This fact means that if you measure one particle you cannot infer anything meaningful about the observers measuring the other particle, except you know what state they will measure, or have already measured."



There is a particle physics guy on this forum, I wonder if he is still around because he might be able to explain it in more detail.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 


Oh I'm firmly aware of why its that way. What I am suggesting is that technology no longer needs to be "on or off" as in the old days of computing where the vacuum tube is either on of off. You and everyone else need to understand that you can move beyond just "on or off", there are other values in there that can be used on a hardware level. Sure you may need a new kind of transistor, but current, modern semiconductor technology can provide that solution and you don't need theoretical physics and a lab full of equipment to do it either.

I giggle at all the discrete minds that insist on one way of doing things... to anyone who can see what I am saying, I'm throwing you a real bone here, now go do something with it...



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CAPT PROTON
 

When you have something to demonstrate we'll have something to talk about. Until then...



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Here was a one-day wonder of a thread that some people may have missed. I really enjoy following the growth of computer and chip speeds and efficiency, and am looking forward to the various giant leaps in the field in 2014.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join