A practical guide to faster than light communication

The main objection to FTL communication is one draped in archaic thinking. This occurs in science because scientist get stuck on Newton, then when Einstein comes along there's resistance to accept what he's saying. Then Quantum Mechanics comes along and of course there's resistance. We're seeing that same resistance today in many of the cutting edge theories that I believe will be the Quantum Mechanics of tomorrow.

With FTL communication, people get stuck on Einstein saying you can't travel faster than light. Well, FTL communication and Einstein are correct because with FTL communication nothing is moving through space-time faster than light. FTL occurs because of quantum entanglement. Specifically entanglement swapping.

A paper was published in Nature about this and it's self explanatory when it comes to FTL Communication.

The basic setup goes like this:

Both pairs of photons are entangled, so that the two particles in the first set are entangled with each other, and the two particles in the second set are entangled with each other. Then, one photon from each pair is sent to a person named Victor. Of the two particles that are left behind, one goes to Bob, and the other goes to Alice.

But now, Victor has control over Alice and Bob's particles. If he decides to entangle the two photons he has, then Alice and Bob's photons, each entangled with one of Victor's, also become entangled with each other. And Victor can choose to take this action at any time, even after Bob and Alice may have measured, changed or destroyed their photons.

"The fantastic new thing is that this decision to entangle two photons can be done at a much later time," said research co-author Anton Zeilinger, also of the University of Vienna. "They may no longer exist."

The great thing about this is Bob and Alice's particles have never interacted with each other. So you have correlated and uncorrelated which would act as 1's and 0's.

Let's say Victor is on a planet 10,000 light years away. Bob and Alice would have to be together on the same computer. They say:

101100 = dog
100110 = cat

Could Victor send Bob and Alice the words cat or dog faster than light? Yes they can.

If Victor has 6 particle pairs on his planet 10,000 light years away, he can then send Bob and Alice the word dog or cat. Let's say he wants to send dog.

Victor would do this. He would entangle the first pair, he would choose not to entangle the second pair, he would then entangle the next two pairs and he would choose not to entangle the last two pairs.

When Bob and Alice check their particles pairs, they would see:

correlated, uncorrelated, correlated, correlated, uncorrelated, uncorrelated or 101100 which = dog.

The beauty of this is causality will be preserved because nothing is actually moving through space-time faster than light.

The author even talks about how this could be used for communication between quantum computers.

"The idea is to create two particle pairs, send one to one computer, the other to another," Zeilinger said."Then if these two photons are entangled, the computers could use them to exchange information."

www.livescience.com...

Again, people will say they don't fully understand quantum entanglement but in the next breathe say but I know FTL communication is impossible via quantum entanglement.

We've had this thread before.
You didnt understand the topic thre first time around either...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree with great deal of what you are saying. I think of entanglement as a tube and the particles are the "ends" of the tube...or like quarks each end has contrasting realities. Up spin and down spin. The unrealized key attribute to this is PERSPECTIVE. as ANYTHING that is spinning is spinning in both directions simultaneously...lets say you had a rotating tube 10 light years in length. The point of perception from earth may have this tube rotating clockwise...so any perspective in a 180degree arc would also be clockwise. When the perspective comes back around towards earth past at 181deg the direction of spin would reverse and be going counter-clockwise.

Lets say that you wanted to send a message instantly 10 light years away from earth.

If you could set a standard and control the direction of spin of these tubes lets say clockwise =1 and counterclockwise = 0 and no spin designates the literal space between coding...then message would be able to be seen instantly 10 light years away. If the message was sent forwards it would be deciphered backwards...if the message was sent backwards it would be deciphered forwards...

For example

Lets say you wanted to send a binary message "01001000 01101001" (hi)10 light years away.

Lets say "0" = counter rotation "1" = clockwise rotation and the space between digits = stop rotation.

the message would be sent as: "counter(0)>stop>clock(1)>stop>counter(0)>stop>counter(0)>stop>clock(1)>stop>counter(0)>stop>counter(0)>stop>counter(0)etc...

I'm sure the process could be cleaned up and made more efficient than this but the general idea remains the same.

Perspective has an informational component to it that hasn't been explored...if particle entanglement functions similarly to this "tube" then the idea is only limited by the ability to detect the contrasting particle 10 light years away to decipher the message. We could potentially manipulate large groups of particles to make it easier to read...kinda like large print books =)

Entanglement cannot be sued for FTL communication.

See: www.google.com...

reply to post by Sly1one

Perspective has an informational component to it that hasn't been explored...if particle entanglement functions similarly to this "tube" then the idea is only limited by the ability to detect the contrasting particle 10 light years away to decipher the message. We could potentially manipulate large groups of particles to make it easier to read...kinda like large print books =)

Exactly,

The point is, the perspective of measuring uncorrelated vs. correlated has informational content that can be sent from A to B faster than light via entanglement swapping.

reply to post by neoholographic


I was going to write a long explanation on this subject (as we did these experiments in 1993 to 1995 through the NRC), but I think I will wait, simply because we found no way to introduce a third wave-function (entanglement) without full collapse of the stable entanglement between the initial two wave-functions. That does not mean that it's not possible, simply that the math and the empirical data from our experiments showed that a third wave-function could not be introduced without collapse.

Imagine you have two 1/2 balls made of energy that are in perfect sync. They are undulating in four dimensions (three plus time) and when you merge them, they become a single standing wave mirrored in two different locations. If you introduce a third 1/2 ball of energy from any location, the interference patterns created through summation of the third wave-function will destroy the stable standing wave of the first two in short order.

You can try a simple experiment with an oscilloscope; sync two 1000hz signals and sum them. What you will find is that the two signals compliment each other and the amplitude of the summed signal is the sum of both signals and the frequency remains at 1000hz. If they are 1 volts each, the summed signal becomes 2 volts. Now take a third 1000hz signal and introduce it to the first two from a different location where you can't see the original summed signal (because the third signal is in a different location other than the first two signals). The third signal will be out of sync and will collapse parts of the original summed signal. Statistics and probabilities allow for the chance of a perfect in-sync match, but the probability is simply non-zero or 1 over infinity.

If you are at the source of the original summed signals, either location, you could sum a third, fourth, etc. signal as long as each signal was in perfect sync. I looked at this kind of technology for cell phones, since the potential for "tapping" a conversation or data stream is almost impossible (non-zero probability again) and it would have no means of network control, therefore communication would be free (not good for governments and communications companies). The only problem I encountered was the power requirements, in that distance is inversely exponential to the amount of power required due to the operational necessity of curving space to produce distance compression.

So, if someone can explain to me or show me a paper on how to introduce a tertiary (or greater) signal to a stable entangled pair from a non-local point that does not know the entangled pairs state without collapsing the originating entanglement, it would be much appreciated.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by neoholographic


You wouldn't keep making the same mistakes if you simply stopped ignoring responses you don't like. Yes, the particles can be observed moving .. the problem is you can't know what the movement means until you get the cipher, which must be sent via traditional methods.

So yes, you can immediately transmit a message via this message 40 light years away. The problem is they won't know what the message says until 40+ years which is when the cipher arrives.

ETA: Someday we may discover a way to make this work. We also may not. As of right now it's impossible.

Sly1one
For example

Lets say you wanted to send a binary message "01001000 01101001" (hi)10 light years away.

Lets say "0" = counter rotation "1" = clockwise rotation and the space between digits = stop rotation.

the message would be sent as: "counter(0)>stop>clock(1)>stop>counter(0)>stop>counter(0)>stop>clock(1)>stop>counter(0)>stop>counter(0)>stop>counter(0)etc...

I'm sure the process could be cleaned up and made more efficient than this but the general idea remains the same.

It's impossible to control what the particles will do. You can increase the odds of the desired outcome, but you can not force a specific outcome. It is also not a 1 or 0 situation, there are far more outcomes possible.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


This makes no sense.

It wouldn't take 40 years for any cipher to travel through space-time. The sequence of correlated/uncorrelated is predetermined by Victor, Alice and Bob. You can test this right now with atomic clocks and a random number generator.

You can set this up where Victor, Bob and Alice are 1 mile apart. Scientist have already clocked entanglement using atomic clocks. You determine the speed that light will carry a message from Victor to Alice and Bob. You then set up three words that could be sent.

101100 = dog
100110 = cat
110001 = rat

You then have a random number generator determine which word will be sent. You also have atomic clocks set up with Alice and Bob and one with Victor.

To determine which word is being sent, you just need to check for quantum correlation which = 1 and when there's no quantum correlation it = 0.

Quantum correlation occurs when Victor entangles a particle pair that's already entangled with the particle pairs Alice and Bob have. The thing that makes this possible is Alice and Bob's particle pair doesn't exhibit quantum correlation until Victor chooses to entangle his particle pair.

So it's simple. When Victor wants to send a 1, he entangles his particle pair and then the particle pair of Alice and Bob will show quantum correlation. If Victor wants to send an 0, he doesn't entangle his particle pair and Alice and Bob will not find quantum correlation.

Like I said, I think people hear FTL communication and they immediately say, "Einstein said this isn't possible because nothing can travel faster than light."

The problem with this is, FTL communication isn't sending information through space-time faster than light so causality isn't violated. There was even recent talk that entangled particles might be connected by wormholes.

At the end of the day, FTL communication via entanglement doesn't violate the laws of physics as we understand them in any way.

reply to post by neoholographic


Yes, you think that is what people think, and that is why you are wrong. I posted why it's impossible, it had nothing to do with Einstein.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


No you didn't. What you posted makes zero sense and has nothing to do with anything that was mentioned.

neoholographic
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

This makes no sense.

It wouldn't take 40 years for any cipher to travel through space-time. The sequence of correlated/uncorrelated is predetermined by Victor, Alice and Bob. You can test this right now with atomic clocks and a random number generator.

You can set this up where Victor, Bob and Alice are 1 mile apart. Scientist have already clocked entanglement using atomic clocks. You determine the speed that light will carry a message from Victor to Alice and Bob. You then set up three words that could be sent.

101100 = dog
100110 = cat
110001 = rat

You then have a random number generator determine which word will be sent. You also have atomic clocks set up with Alice and Bob and one with Victor.

To determine which word is being sent, you just need to check for quantum correlation which = 1 and when there's no quantum correlation it = 0.

Did you miss the part in the original article whereby Alice and Bob each first send one photon from their pairs over to Victor, who later chooses whether to entangle them or not?

That "send a photon over to Victor" part happens at the speed of light, obviously, and not instantaneously. FTL comm is out.

The actual article shows that bizzarely there is not faster-than-light but backward-in-time correlational influence from Victor. Suppose you were able to store entangled photons for one light day, say in a very very long fiber optic cable with entanglement-preserving amplifiers. Might you send back tomorrow's lottery numbers?

A hedge fund might want to fund this research. You probably only have to predict the statistics & news releases from the Fed and BLS one second ahead, the Entanglement Oracle.

This might actually be experimentally feasible and obviously would be far more practically important. After all, we don't actually have anybody to send FTL comm "subspace radio" to anyway.

Realistically of course only the biggest institutions and traders would be allowed to do this, so as to fleece the ordinary person just a bit more than they do already, aka "Market Maker Exception" to the Dodd-Frank rules.

If you did this as an ordinary person or non-privileged entity (in practice most hedge funds are far less powerful than a major bank) you'd be imprisoned for insider trading. Better live in Switzerland.

reply to post by mbkennel



Sorry, but that's wrong. Alice and Bob sending their entangled photons to Victor has nothing to do with FTL communication. The only thing that matters is this:

But now, Victor has control over Alice and Bob's particles.

Nothing is being communicated when Alice and Bob send their photons to Victor. FTL communication occurs when Victor has control of the particles. This is because he can send a message to Alice and Bob faster than the speed of light. This is based on whether Victor chooses to entangle the particle pair or not to entangle the particle pair. If he chooses to entangle the particle pair, Alice and Bob will see quantum correlations(1)if Victor chooses not to entangle the particle pairs, then they will not see quantum correlations(0).

reply to post by neoholographic


I think there's a more general problem. Quantum vs classical correlations are not something that can be encoded causally as a bit.

I went back to the original paper which proposed the idea theoretically.

arxiv.org...

Alice and Bob's actual concrete classical observations are random bits. You don't know if there is quantum entanglement from looking at them alone. Read the bottom of page 3 and top of page 4.
Whether or not they were quantumly entangled cannot be discerned until the actual knowledge from Victor ("Eve" in this paper) of what was done is brought back to A&B for a statistical analysis of the results of many repetitions.

No FTL, no classical information from the future.

reply to post by mbkennel


This is wrong and very dishonest.

The paper you're talking about isn't the paper on the actual experiment that took place. It's a thought experiment from 1999 by Asher Peres. The realization of the thought experiment used Victor and was published in 2012.

In this experiment, Victor made the choice and it could be a delayed choice. It's exactly how I described it. First here's the Abstract from 2012:

Motivated by the question, which kind of physical interactions and processes are needed for the production of quantum entanglement, Peres has put forward the radical idea of delayed-choice entanglement swapping. There, entanglement can be “produced a posteriori, after the entangled particles have been measured and may no longer exist.” In this work we report the first realization of Peres’ gedanken experiment. Using four photons, we can actively delay the choice of measurement – implemented via a high-speed tunable bipartite state analyzer and a quantum random number generator – on two of the photons into the time-like future of the registration of the other two photons. This effectively projects the two already registered photons onto one definite of two mutually exclusive quantum states in which either the photons are entangled (quantum correlations) or separable (classical correlations). This can also be viewed as “quantum steering into the past”.

As you see, this was the realization of Peres thought experiment. In the paper you linked to from 1999 it says this:

In the present article, I propose an even more paradoxical experiment, where entanglement is produced a posteriori , after the entangled particles have been measured and may no longer exist.

In this article he was PROPOSING AN EXPERIMENT THAT WAS REALIZED IN THE EXPERIMENT PUBLISHED IN 2012.

So either you were being dishonest or you missed the huge date on the article you linked to that says 11 April 1999.

A gedanken experiment is a thought experiment. Gedanken is German. Here's more from Wiki:

A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.

So again, the paper you quoted from is a thought experiment.

Here's more from the recent experiment:

In the entanglement swapping 1-3 procedure, two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one
photon from each pair is sent to Victor. The two other photons from each pair are sent to Alice and Bob,
respectively. If Victor projects his two photons onto an entangled state, Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled although they have never interacted or shared any common past. What might be considered as even more 4,5 puzzling is Peres’ idea of “delayed-choice for entanglement swapping” . In this gedanken experiment, Victor is free to choose either to project his two photons onto an entangled state and thus project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto an entangled state, or to measure them individually and then project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto a separable state. If Alice and Bob measure their photons’ polarization states before Victor makes his choice and projects his two photons either onto an entangled state or onto a separable state, it implies that whether their two photons are entangled (showing quantum correlations) or separable (showing classical correlations) can be defined after they have been measured.

Here's the kicker:

Our experiment demonstrates entanglement-separability duality in a delayed-choice configuration via entanglement swapping for the first time. This means that it is possible to freely and a posteriori decide which type of mutually exclusive correlations two already earlier measured particles have. They can either show quantum correlations (due to entanglement) or purely classical correlations (stemming from a separable state).

Exactly what I have been saying.

Here's a link to the paper published on the experiment from 2012.

arxiv.org...

reply to post by neoholographic


It's still the same problem of no one knowing the particles got entangled until Victor tells them they were.

"In our experiment, the primary events are the polarization measurements of photons 1 and 4 by Alice and Bob. They keep their data sets for future evaluation. Each of these data sets by itself and their correlations are completely random and show no structure whatsoever."

case closed.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Wrong.

They're not random once Victor decides to swap entanglement or not swap entanglement.

Bob and Alice know when Victor chooses to swap entanglement or not swap entanglement.

How do they know this?

It's because photons 1&2 are entangled and so are photons 3&4.

Photons 1&4 have never interacted.

When Victor chooses a bell state measurement with photons 2&3, the entanglement is swapped and projected onto photons 1&4. Alice and Bob have the data about the entanglement of 1&2 and 3&4 that's being swapped.

When Victor chooses a separable measurement, the entanglement isn't swapped and this is projected onto photons 1&4.

So again, Alice&Bob know when Victor has chosen to swap entanglement and when Victor has chosen not to swap entanglement because they are armed with the data of entanglement between photons 1&2 and 3&4.

When Victor performs a Bell state measurement this swaps entanglement which is CONFIRMED by strong correlation between 3 bases for photons 1&4. When this occurs the state fidelity is 0.681+/-0.034 and the entanglement witness value is -0.181+/-0.034 which shows entanglement between photons 1&4.

Again, Victor isn't choosing which Bell state will occur. He's choosing whether a bell state or a separable state will occur for photons 1&4.

If Victor chooses a separable state measurement, the state fidelity is 0.421+/-0.029 and the entanglement witness value is 0.078+/-0.029 between photons 1&4.

You have to quote the actually experiment that occurred not little bits and pieces that have no context.

CASE CLOSED!

reply to post by neoholographic


I just quoted the actual study that 100% says you are wrong. So unless you know better than the people who did the actual study you are wrong.

Each of these data sets by itself and their correlations are completely random and show no structure whatsoever.

reply to post by neoholographic


Of course I realized it was the original theoretical proposal, which is how I found it in the beginning---a web article linked to it!

The theoretical article will be more clear about what is proposed to happen and the effect, whereas a complex experimental article will discuss complex experimental evidence & techniques, on the assumption that the readership already understands the theory. So the original theory is the best place to go to understand the concept, since that's what it's about.

Do you understand the my point, which was taken from the theoretical article? Did you read the theoretical article?

The evaluation of whether or not the particles at A&B were entangled, or not, can only be discerned under the conditions:

1) a large number of repeated replications since the effect of entanglement correlations can only be discerned in this case

2) use of the value of the actual choice made by Victor (or Eve in the original article) to analyze the data taken by A&B

It's this #2 issue which precludes FTL/retro-causal classical communication.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


What? Did you even read what I said?

Of course it was completely random until Victor made the choice to swap entanglement with photons 1&2 and 3&4. I suggest you read the published paper instead quoting things that have no context. Again, what happened when Victor chose to swap entanglement or not to swap entanglement?

When Victor performs a Bell state measurement this swaps entanglement which is CONFIRMED by strong correlation between 3 bases for photons 1&4. When this occurs the state fidelity is 0.681+/-0.034 and the entanglement witness value is -0.181+/-0.034 which shows entanglement between photons 1&4.

Again, Victor isn't choosing which Bell state will occur. He's choosing whether a bell state or a separable state will occur for photons 1&4.

If Victor chooses a separable state measurement, the state fidelity is 0.421+/-0.029 and the entanglement witness value is 0.078+/-0.029 between photons 1&4.

So of course it's random until Victor makes the choice to swap or not to swap entanglement. The paper is about entanglement swapping. This is why it's call "Experimental delayed choice entanglement swapping."