Can Quantum Entanglement Create Faster-Than-Light Communication? (mit.edu) 238
Slashdot reader StartsWithABang writes: If you were to send a space probe to a distant star system, gather information about it and send it back to Earth, you'd have to wait years for the information to arrive. But if you have an entangled quantum system -- say, two photons, one with spin +1 and one with spin -1 -- you could know the spin of the distant one instantly by measuring the spin of the one in your possession.
This "incredible idea to exploit quantum weirdness" for communication was the subject of a recent Forbes article [which blocks ad-blockers] as well as a NASA mission directorate. ("Entanglement-assisted Communication System for NASA's Deep-Space Missions: Feasibility Test and Conceptual Design".) And Friday MIT News reported a research team is now making progress toward capturing paired electron halves for quantum computing on gold film. "Our first goal is to look for the Majorana fermions, unambiguously detect them, and show this is it. "
This week even 85-year-old Star Trek actor William Shatner cited quantum entanglement in a discussion of Star Trek's transporter technology, arguing that "Although a lot of the concepts in science fiction are absurd to our Newtonian minds, anything is possible because of the new language of quantum physics."
This "incredible idea to exploit quantum weirdness" for communication was the subject of a recent Forbes article [which blocks ad-blockers] as well as a NASA mission directorate. ("Entanglement-assisted Communication System for NASA's Deep-Space Missions: Feasibility Test and Conceptual Design".) And Friday MIT News reported a research team is now making progress toward capturing paired electron halves for quantum computing on gold film. "Our first goal is to look for the Majorana fermions, unambiguously detect them, and show this is it. "
This week even 85-year-old Star Trek actor William Shatner cited quantum entanglement in a discussion of Star Trek's transporter technology, arguing that "Although a lot of the concepts in science fiction are absurd to our Newtonian minds, anything is possible because of the new language of quantum physics."
No (Score:5, Informative)
TLDR: No.
Next story please.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
IDK, I was able to know pretty much exactly that this was going to be the first post, several minutes before the post actually showed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but you hadn't observed. Once you observed it, you locked it into that state. By extension, that post they made? That's *your* fault.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR=="I'm aliterate. I hate to read.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case it means: "Stupid headline; clickbait that will lie or disappoint." The only possible news here is that NASA is doing something stupid, but I cannot be bothered to check for sure.
Information cannot be delivered faster than Einstein's constant even using quantum entanglement. The concept is well-understood. Would you read an article about how NASA discovered how to make your car run more efficiently by using tap water instead of gasoline?
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing about faster than light communication (which is still impossible as far as we know, and highly unlikely to ever be discovered as it would allow sending messages back in time if our current understanding of relativity is correct).
What they are researching, is sending a larger amount of information over a long distance through space with the same number of photons, by using entanglement to reduce noise somewhat. The idea is quite complicated, google "quantum-enhanced classical communication" for more details, you can find a few related papers that are not behind pay walls (like here [arxiv.org]), but I couldn't find a decent explanation that doesn't involve pages full of math.
It's definitely not faster than light. Just a clever trick to make it a little (not even a lot) more likely for a message to arrive intact without errors.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I couldn't find a decent explanation that doesn't involve pages full of math.
Welcome to Quantum Mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You really are a CRETIN! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do not understand entanglement.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how entanglement works. In your example, with entangled photons being sent from halfway between A and B, all A and B can do is measure their particles and then, afterwards, find out that their measurements matched. Neither A nor B can choose which information to send.
It can be proven that both particles really were in a superposition of states until they were measured, and they did not contain any hidden variables that would determine the outcome, so the "information" of what state the particles
Just a second, I'll let you know (Score:3)
I'm just typing this before I crawl into my Primer tube at the storage depot to take a peak if FTL works in the future.
Actually there's an interesting proof by David Wolpert that this sort of thing can't work the way you think it can. It sort of goes like like this in rough outline. There's only so much information that the state of the universe can encode. If you import information from another time frame to the current time frame you have to lose some information. He goes on to argue that information
Re: (Score:2)
With error correction you never get perfect transports, there is always the likelihood that all bits flip the right way such that the error code remains valid. The only thing error codes give you is to make errors less likely, to an arbitrary extent. They don't give you the ability to eliminate all errors. You can however make it so unlikely that the likelihood that an error happens within the next 10 billion years is less than 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just typing this before I crawl into my Primer tube at the storage depot to take a peak if FTL works in the future.
Actually there's an interesting proof by David Wolpert that this sort of thing can't work the way you think it can. It sort of goes like like this in rough outline. There's only so much information that the state of the universe can encode. If you import information from another time frame to the current time frame you have to lose some information.
Not sure I buy this. Setting the qbits on a machine in the past from "unknown" to "known" wouldn't create any more information than simply observing the bits in the past (without the time-sending). By Wolpert's argument, every time we observe something in an unknown state the universe has to forget something, or else put us in a wait queue. Unless of course the universe isn't currently storing its full capacity, in which case the argument fails anyway.
OTOH, conservation laws may prevent physical time tra
Re: (Score:3)
TLDR: No.
Next story please.
Yeah, not sure that this crap is. We already know that entanglement is useless for communication and we know why. Why do people keep pushing this click-baity misinformation? Stop constantly re-confusing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He may or may not have fixed your car, and every time the you check you influence the outcome
So... like my real mechanic.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't know everything about the universe. We also should discuss the possibility of FTL.
What is wrong with this is that we've already discussed entanglement in regard to FTL and we already know it doesn't work that way. This is like looping around to the same wrong answer time and time again. Let's move on to something that hasn't been ruled out.
FTL communciation with entanglement not possible (Score:5, Informative)
I used to think this was an option too, but the more I read about it, the more it became obvious that it wouldn't work. This is because, while you would easily and immediately have an influence on the paired quantumdot at Earth, even if you were 10 lightyears away, there is no way to direct or guide to any particular state in front. Meaning, the moment to interact with your entangled electron or photon, it would 'set' its state, but in a random way.
So 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. This is actually a good thing, because much of science is done by ignoring entanglements, and the reason we get away with that is the information we are ignoring cannot interfere with our interpretation of the results of our experiment.
Suppose we split up two qubits in an entangled |00+|11state, where we've established that Alice is going to measure two overlapping bell curves with their double-slit experiment.Suppose Bob likes wavy interference patterns. The rules of quantum mechanics allow Bob to do, on his qubit, any unitary transformation like |0|112|0+12|112|012|1.
This takes our state to:
14|00+14|01+14|1014|11
Now supposing that Bob measures his qubit as 0 or 1, then Alice must measure either the wavy interference patterns 12|f0(x)+f1(x)|2 or 12|f0(x)f1(x)|2.
Bob can thereby instantaneously change, from a quantum perspective, what the outcomes of Alice's measurement are going to be.
Alice's wavefunction must change instantaneously and might even change retroactively: she may have already measured her qubit before Bob does this unitary transformation and measurement: nevertheless, to satisfy the predictions of quantum mechanics, her measurements must be consistent with Bob's manipulations. But that can't send messages. Because this thing that Bob has done is not directly visible to Alice. That's for a couple of reasons, the first being that this only generates one photon of results on the double-slit screen, which isn't enough to see the pattern! But suppose we measure lots and lots of these qubits to try and see the pattern: then the problem is that Alice doesn't know which ones Bob measured as 0 or which ones Bob measured as 1. Since there was a 50/50 chance of Bob getting either, what Alice sees is therefore:
14|f0(x)+f1(x)|2+14|f0(x)f1(x)|2=12|f0(x)|2+12|f1(x)|2.
Alice therefore still measures two overlapping bell curves, overall!
Where are the interference patterns?! That is very simple: when Bob and Alice compare their measurements in the first case, Bob's 0-measurement can be used to "filter" Alice's patterns into 12|f0(x)|2,
the bell curve of photons which passed through only the first slit, and his 1-measurement filters the results to give 12|f1(x)|2,
Bob's transformation then changes how he can filter Alice's patterns: Alice's overlapping bell curves are now made up of the ones he measured 0
for, which describe one wavy pattern, and the ones he measured 1 for, which describe the other wavy pattern, and they add up into the non-wavy pattern.
Re: (Score:3)
Meaning, the moment to interact with your entangled electron or photon, it would 'set' its state, but in a random way.
didn't we overcome the uncertainty principle when making quantum computers? [sciencedaily.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant you that is an interesting read. They're basically saying they can measure a wavefunction and yet it doesn't collapse by the measurement of it. (To be precise, they measure a property through the wave-function, namely if it's polarised or not.) It doesn't say they could measure what kind of polarisation had taken place, only that it did or didn't. So it doesn't denote that once it is 'set' in a state, it's not random anymore (you can't choose in front *how* it would be polarised, without collapsi
Re: (Score:2)
that's quite the verbose way of admitting you were wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
To be precise, it's a verbose way of acknowledging I *could* be wrong. ;-)
Then again, if everyone would be willing to do the same thing on slashdot, debates would considerable improve around here. :-p
The only thing I find strange, seen the dramatic implications of it, is that there seems to be no paper who has tried it out and confirmed FTL communication. I'm sure it would have been world-news and we'd all heard about it, if it was the case. And it's been 3 years since that paper...
Thus, I'm leaving it open
Re: (Score:2)
Well... let' say I *could* be wrong. ;-)
you're right that the entangled pair stays undetermined on itself, but, as far as I can see, this doesn't stop the possibility of retrieving info.
As I interpreted the paper, what they're saying is that they can determine if the wavefunction has collapsed or not, without it actually make it collapse by doing so.
In that case, let's say I have 100 qubits, 50 times 2 qubits. You agree before you leave Earth, that they'll all stay in the uncollapsed state, unless you want
Re: (Score:2)
While true, it still sheds some doubts on my former absolute stance it wasn't possible, I regret to say.
Let's say you can perform weak measurements with some uncertainty, without it collapsing the wavefront.
As long as that uncertainty is lower than the statistical chance it being equal to a random number (aka, 50%), it would still mean one could get information out of it in a statistical way.
Let's say you have two qubits, the right one mean yes, the left one no. If you can check both qubits without collapsi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amen! ;-)
I would say you're partially right. Journeying on itself can be fun. However, at a certain point you have to draw the line. For instance, claims without (scientific) proof about subjects that we already know of that are impossible (in the sense that it breaks basic laws we otherwise already would have measured and observed it long ago, if true), is a futile endeavour. It becomes the realm of pseudo-science, and that does more damage to science than anything else. That's why claims like that of the
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, lets be sceptical until more experiments confirm or refute the claims of that paper.
Scepticism is, of course, part and parcel to all true science.
Why do you need to know the state? (Score:3)
Obviously, I am not a physicist, so I genuinely asking this.
I get that the change of the state would be random and thus there is no way to predict how the state will change. But do you need to know?
I mean lets say the ship was 10 light years away and the partner was here on earth.
Let's say that we figured out a way to both measure a change in state instantly. How it changed isnt important, only that it did change.
We also figured out a way to change the state when we want to.
Could we not just use frequency o
Re:Why do you need to know the state? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think that the second particles wave function has collapsed, so far as you're concerned locally, before you force it to by attempting measurement? Entanglement only means that once one of the particles is measured the other when measured will have the complementary value.
Please, honestly, give me a citation from somewhere/one trustworthy about this detection of wave function collapse without the particle interacting such that the entanglement has been destroyed. An repeatable, verifiable
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Actually I got a link by a poster here, which is pretty interesting and deals with exactly that:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
Now... the whole thing of me saying it's impossible is based on the assumption that you can't measure a qubit directly without destroying the wavefront. Which, while not a 'law' of physics, was pretty much a core tenet. If that doesn't hold anymore, the principle objection to FTL communication is gone too (I've made another post explaining why, but I'm sure you can see and re
Re: (Score:2)
Someone more able to work in the detail of QM should comment.
Off the top of my head: I guess this is saying that if when they measure in this manner the result comes out in a certain way they know the photon still has an un-collapsed wave function? Presumably if it had a definite state it would be either vertically or horizontally polarised ? I'm still not sure that the wave function of the 'second' particle will actually show locally as having collapsed just because the 'first' particle was measured.
Re:Why do you need to know the state? (Score:4, Informative)
Someone more able to work in the detail of QM should comment.
Off the top of my head: I guess this is saying that if when they measure in this manner the result comes out in a certain way they know the photon still has an un-collapsed wave function? Presumably if it had a definite state it would be either vertically or horizontally polarised ? I'm still not sure that the wave function of the 'second' particle will actually show locally as having collapsed just because the 'first' particle was measured. It's just that when you perform a full measurement you'll get the complementary value.
I don't think it actually claims it can measure *what* determined state it is in (what kind of polarisation has taken place). Because in that case, you can't but have a collapsed wavefront, since you actually determined the exact state of the particle itself.
What they're saying is that they can determine *whether* or not a qubit has an undetermined or determined state (without saying anything more about the determined state, thus).
They say they can measure whether it's 'set', or whether it's 'not set', without collapsing it. And, following logic, that alone would be enough to impart some information, indeed. Because if one had 100 individual qubits that are supposed to be in an undetermined state, yet when you measure it at Alpha Centauri (without the wave-function being collapsed), and it would turn out some of them were undetermined, but some aren't anymore (because of polarisation of the entangled qubits deliberately done on Earth), you could create a pattern that sends information. Even if there were random fluctuations individually, you could still filter it out statistically.
IF true, it should be possible, in principle, to have FTL communication. Since that is no small matter, and would earn you a nobel-prize, it's strange to see no paper dealing with this, even after 3 years since its publication...
Re: (Score:2)
One of the core tenets was exactly that; that indeterminate states are observationally indistinguishable from determinate states, until it actually got observed, in which case the wavefront collapses in a random way (and thus, no information could be retrieved by it).
However, it seems there is a paper claiming one can measure the (polarisation) state of a qubit without collapsing the wavefront. If this turns out to be true, in principle, it would be possible to get information from the state of that wavefro
Re: (Score:3)
Well...when fucking or being fucked, there is always some entanglement involved...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not exactly communication per se, but it can be used to indicate instantaneously at a distance which of a predetermined set of actions has been randomly selected.
As to why it's not communication, it's effectively the same as if you had a third party randomly write "attack" or "no attack" on two pieces of paper, seal them up in envelopes, and give them to you and your commander before he left, with instructions to both of you not to open them for 5 years. Heck, once your commander was out of communication range, you could open them at that point, as long as you're willing to be locked into your battle plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping with traditional 'wisdom' of entangled particles (there has been given a link which cast some doubt on this), the reason why what you say doesn't transfer information is as follows:
Say the answer is yes. You open the box with yes. It automatically collapses the wavefront, making the particle determined to a +1 or -1, whatever. You have no control over whether it's +1 or -1, however; it happens fully randomly. So you can't impart info directly that way, agreed?
But, you say, that doesn't matter, since
Cornodium (Score:2, Interesting)
I used quantum entanglement in a SF story I posted in my journal [slashdot.org] (a better copy without /.'s patented smart quote mangler is here [mcgrew.info]). I called them "jump radio" in the story.
Re: (Score:2)
Shatner really said *that*? (Score:2)
I would love to find out where Mr. Shatner got the wisdom to make that insightful statement.
Not to put him down, but his background as an actor and "writer" hardly gives him the background to understand what that statement means.
I suspect that both he and our current Prime Minister have a publicist with at least an undergraduate degree in physics.
Quantum entanglement methods for accessing Forbes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where to start with what's wrong here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot reader StartsWithABang writes:
Reader? Reader? I very much doubt StartsWithABang ever reads anything here.
Can Quantum Entanglement Create Faster-Than-Light Communication?
No, it can't. This has been known for years, and gets pointed out in every quantum story on Slashdot multiple times.
If a headline asks a question, and the answer is known, I should think the last Slashdot could do is to put that well-known and proven answer in the summary.
And Friday MIT News reported a research team is now making progress toward capturing paired electron halves for quantum computing on gold film. "Our first goal is to look for the Majorana fermions, unambiguously detect them, and show this is it."
Does that have anything to do with the aim of FTL communication? Or did you just put it in because it had the word "quantum" in it?
This week even 85-year-old Star Trek actor William Shatner cited quantum entanglement in a discussion of Star Trek's transporter technology
And just when I thought it couldn't get any more tenuous...
No (Score:3)
Suppose I have two marbles in my bedside drawer, one red, one blue. In the morning, I get up and put one in my pocket, leaving the other behind, but without looking at either. I then go to work, say on Alpha Centauri, 4 light years away (say in a NAFAL spaceship). At some point, I pull out the marble in my pocket, and see that it is red. I now know instantly that the marble in my drawer back on Earth, four light years away, is blue.
Can that be used for communication? No. Quantum entanglement makes the choices more complex, but it doesn't allow for FTL communications any more than the marbles in my pocket do.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you get into Uncertainty Principles which mean that the information you gain is random. It's like a random bit generator. Now, take that random bit generator and increase the number of bits... still random.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it clearly can't no matter how many marbles you have.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it can't. The clock starts when you create the entanglement / separate the marbles.
No information can be obtained later that couldn't be obtained immediately after the entanglement / separation of the marbles.
Forbes blocks ABP, not uBlock Origin (Score:2)
Entanglement for dummies. (Score:2)
But if you have an entangled quantum system -- say, two photons, one with spin +1 and one with spin -1 -- you could know the spin of the distant one instantly by measuring the spin of the one in your possession.
From what I have read, there is nothing magical about quantum entanglement.
Instead of photons lets use a coin. You take a coin and split it in half such that one half has the heads and the other tails. Now place each half into a separate sealed box. While doing this DO NOT LOOK AT THE COIN HALVES as this is where quantum entanglement claims to be magical and influential. Now send those boxes out to two locations anywhere in the universe. Now open one box, see what is contains and you will know immediately w
Re: (Score:2)
There are some experiments that prove the values are not set - but they cannot be observed without also randomising them in such a way that no information can be transferred.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is it's already been shown that the particles don't have any hidden state as your coin halves do. As I understand it is more like having two coins which always come up on opposite sides when flipped. It really is weird and difficult to understand how it's possible, all we know if that it is. Regardless, it's still useless a far as communication goes.
NO MORE FORBES LINKS (Score:5, Informative)
seriously, please reject all stories with links to forbes from now on.
Re: (Score:2)
There are browser extensions that get rid of the splash screen. Here [tinyurl.com] is one for Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
What about if we had a new movement to rewrite all the interesting articles on sites like Forbes. Only takes one person to do this and it saves a lot of time and frustration for the rest of humanity.
Possible if the Universe is non-local (Score:2)
There are some theories, most prominently the De Broglie-Bohm theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory) which assume that the Universe itself is inherently non-local.
These theories are basically Aether theories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) which assume some kind of unknown medium (possible that medium is space itself). Do not confuse these with the Luminiferous aether theory.
If there is such medium that can explain a lot of things eg. why the Universe appears t
No...ish... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From my limited understanding on the subject, the actual entanglement only allows you to know the state of the other particle at the far site when you measure yours.
Which introduces a problem of its own: since they can't tell you when they've sent a message, when you measure yours you don't know whether the result is a message or just the measured value of a qbit's state.
I assume this is an optimization technique so the universe only needs to compute the states of the things that someone cares about.
Yes - Just-In-Time content creation for the simulated universes we talked about last week.
not about FTL but about faster data rates (Score:2)
The NASA report isn't about faster-than-light communications, it's about sending more bits per photon than current optical transmission systems, thereby transmitting data "faster" in the same way that LTE is "faster" than 3G.
According to standard quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics cannot be used for faster than light communications. Now, I'm usually the first to point out that physics isn't mathematics; standard quantum mechanics may simply turn out to be wrong in the long run on this point. But so far, t
Summary (Score:2)
NASA-sponsored research at U. Illinois: use superdense coding, with some interesting twists (note to myself: read about it). That's no FTL, but usung fewer photons for communication than the number of bits communicated. Such technology may become applicable in a distant future.
The Internet of the distant future (Score:2)
What I think is interesting if it were possible to create a warp drive and people ended up scattered about the galaxy Internet of the very distant future could resemble one giant sneaker net of ships ferrying information.
Also posting links to Forbes is a lost cause. We can't read them.
Re: (Score:2)
More like relay stations controlled by a corporate entity.
Couldn't read the article... (Score:2)
Working article link (Score:4, Interesting)
This link will work fine even with ad blockers:
http://webcache.googleusercont... [googleusercontent.com]
You can also change your user agent to Googlebot to workaround such shenanigans.
I've said so for some time now, but... (Score:2)
I can imagine one simple use (Score:2)
We could build intelligent space probes and send them to our nearest stars. If they are small we could send 5 to 10 each for redundancy. They would be as artificially intelligent as we could make them. Then they would answer a series of yes/no questions about the system. That way we could categorize interesting systems to investigate further.
We could also send larger probes able to replicate and repair themselves such that they could investigate indefinitely. If the AI we sophisticated enough we could send
Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:2)
Re: test it (Score:2, Informative)
They already have tested it, and it can't go faster than light. Apparently some people haven't gotten the message.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that it is *not* a communication technology. You can't communicate with entanglement. Period. You can use it to support something like encryption, however, but the communication needs to come from a different method.
However, if you want to have something that passes through the Earth like it isn't there, you want neutrinos. However, the problem with neutrinos is that being something that barely reacts with the entire mass of the Earth, you're not going to be able to actually detect them on
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, what they are doing is sending entangled pairs of photons (both of them) through a classical channel (at the speed of light) and using complicated mathematical quantum tricks to make it slightly more likely for the message to arrive without errors. Apparently, using entangled photons allows a more efficient transmission (less errors) than just using ordinary pairs of photons. But the message still travels at the speed of light.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be hugely helpful by lowering errors, thus increasing effective bandwidth. And that could have relatively large incremental benefits. Unfortunately, everyone keeps getting hung up on the FTL possibilities which do not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
When you say use entangled pairs as communication method, it's meaningless gibberish.
Why are so many people commenting like this? Why would you automatically dismiss it?
AFAIK, if you have an entangled pair, move them to distant places, alter one, then read the other, the other shows that change. One problem, AFAIK, is that the act of reading may alter the spin, so you get one bit out of it, and then you're back to nothing - it's not a channel, and the end result is a lot of time to get one bit of info to that destination.
However, if you were to entangle thousands of them, send half of all t
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The basic problem is that as it stands there is no way to tell if what one detects is random noise or a message.
Do you mean the communication or the article?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I also can't prove that you aren't capable of reaching out with your thoughts, grabbing the Moon, and hurling it into the Sun.
However, the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that you can't. In fact, it would be silly to believe that you could, even though noted physicists like William Shatner say "anything is possible". I'll even go so far as to claim that you can't, even though I admittedly don't have a lot of experience, experimental data, or resources to devote to telekinetic orbital mecha
Re: (Score:2)
I also can't prove that you aren't capable of reaching out with your thoughts, grabbing the Moon, and hurling it into the Sun.
I'm going to steal that, and you can't stop me...
Re: (Score:2)
So shut the fuck up and let the real scientists that get paid to do this stuff figure it out. All of you lack the requisite experience, experimental data, and resources to do otherwise.
But once you know 'it can't be done', to use a phrase from quantum entanglement itself, you will immediately know the grant money 'dried up'.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me when you decide to post anything worth reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tachyons have never been observed. Even if they can exist, there is no known means to generate them. The only reason to believe such a particle is even possible is that they are a valid solution to certain equations in special relativity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Faster than light communication is impossible and would break the universe as we know it;
General Relativity also broke the world as we knew it.
Causality Haiku (Score:3)
Before thing comes first
Violate Causality
I now have first post!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite. I shouldn't but, what the hell? I'm busy elsewhere so I may not even have to deal with any additional derp.
So... If I give you the benefit of doubt, will you actually listen? Science doesn't really work like that. First, you make an observation. Have you observed faster than light communication?
To put it into a bit different light, you aren't supposed to have to prove you're not guilty in a court of law. Not at all. The burden is on the State to prove that you're guilty. It's pretty much like tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed KGill's point.
In a court of law, the burden of proof is with the prosecution, not with the accused.
In science, the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, not with the one refuting it based on current knowledge.
And to paraphrase Marcello Truzzi [wikipedia.org] the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof must be.
Denying faster-than-light communication is not an extraordinary claim, because nothing has ever been observed to go faster than light.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is, one making the *original* claim is the one that needs to provide proof.
Thing that lack any way of observation, are scientifically worthless. Maybe they exist, maybe not. But you can't say anything sensible about it.
Next!
If you postulate 'God', thus, it's for you to prove God exists. If you can't prove that, saying 'but you can't proof he doesn't' is besides the point. In the best case, it just means it should be ignored, just as the postulate 'tooth fairies exist', and 'magical dragon
Re: (Score:2)
The only faster than light effect that has ever been observed (and has in fact repeatedly been demonstrated), is the situation where a journalist sees the word "entanglement" and immediately starts typing "faster than light communication" without any time delay whatsoever.
Obligatory xkcd. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Heisenberg has shown that effect can precede cause at the subatomic level.
No.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My grandfather did not believe in satellites. Several hundred years ago people did not care about heliocentric model.
Not falsifiable. Just because someone may or may not believe in something has no bearing on merit.
Modern people are so limited, as such they have made a practical simplification to treat speed of light as a constant.
Is there evidence to suggest "c" is not constant?
Quantum delayed choice experiment is a first salvo, a first spin to this oversimplification.
The speed of light is a measure of how fast anything can propagate thru space with the usual laundry list of clarifications and stipulations.
Quantum information does not prorogate thru space.
Somewhere there is a 130+ IQ point scientist and sometime this scientist will come up with another thought experiment, which will later be supported by actual experiment which will provide a different spin, and potentially a breakthrough in quantum mechanic understanding. We just don't know how old that scientist is or even if he or she already born.
There is a legion of geeky nerds who are racking their brains around quantum mechanic phenomena and more experiments more discoveries will expand our knowledge horizon.
There is a legion of geeky nerds who are racking their brains around arranging permanent magnets in a way that creates a free energy generator to power their go carts.
In bot
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Let's assume you have a whole bunch of entangled pairs set up, so that you can consult one per day, month, year, whatever. That still doesn't help. When Twin A checks his particle 1 and sees it has (spin, polarisation, whatever) value +1 all you know is that when Twin B measure their matching particle they'll get value -1. That's it. A did not, and cannot choose that his particle measures as +1 rather than -1. All entanglement means is that the pair of particles will have complementary values mea
Re: (Score:2)
Measure them all, record the state, measure them all later... oops, now the measurements are no longer correlated with the state of the particles with Twin A.
Okay. It wasn't clear from the article that once you measure the particle the entanglement goes away. I had assumed that you could keep measuring the particle over and over again for different outcomes. I had read it as being like a pseudo-random number generator that was set to the same seed when the particles were entangled.
I think my general idea still works, though. I did not say that a twin had any ability to influence what the other saw when he measured his particle. All I assumed is that he could tel
Re: (Score:2)
Technically you would only know, in an FTL sense, that the particle at the other location had the opposite value. Just because you agreed that a certain state of that certain particle would mean a certain action was taken/not taken doesn't mean that the other person didn't change their mind, or wasn't prevented from carrying out the agreed-upon course of action.
You'd still only know if using some light-speed limited communication means to verify the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any alien race is going to succeed in entangling all the particles in the Solar System, but even if they do they won't stay entangled for very long. Remember that a lot of the challenges to making viable quantum computers are preventing the entangled particles from interacting with anything else. If they do they're then no longer entangled.
Super-intelligent alien engineers love a challenge and presumably they've had a head start :)
Re:FUCK ETHAN SIEGEL (Score:4, Informative)
Generally, those aren't his entire articles. They're summaries, with links back to Forbes. It's a holding spot so he can double dip on ad revenue.