Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Instantaneous Communication Without Electromagnetic Signals

Instantaneous Communication Without Electromagnetic Signals

franklyn - 5-8-2015 at 10:52

Entanglement , the physical effect of having separate objects instantaneously share physical states or traits , could be used as a secret communication channel. No exchange of signals are transmitted in a classical sense so only the participants would know if communication was even taking place. The experiment discussed makes progress toward enabling macroscopic entangled devices. One can envision two electronic chips that share complimentary entangled states used to write to and read from individually.

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-physicist-unveils-entangling-ma...

annaandherdad - 5-8-2015 at 11:27

The article cited never makes mention of communication faster than the speed of light. If it did, it would be rejected. Entanglement, whether of single particles or macroscopic objects, does not allow communication faster than the speed of light.

battoussai114 - 5-8-2015 at 14:35

Quote: Originally posted by annaandherdad

The article cited never makes mention of communication faster than the speed of light. If it did, it would be rejected. Entanglement, whether of single particles or macroscopic objects, does not allow communication faster than the speed of light.

That's what they want you to believe... *puts tin foil hat*

Oscilllator - 5-8-2015 at 15:07

It doesn't allow communication faster than the speed of light because both observers have to compare results in order to determine that the particles were in fact entangled.

franklyn - 5-8-2015 at 21:01

The criticism made is in deference to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Wish I had a nickel for every time such affirmations have been revised. The only thing forbidden that I can tell is imagination.

Papers on this topic may not be received well in some circles but they circulate all the same and show that measurable progress continues to be made.
The speed of light is a non sequitur , there are no signals sent or received. Two objects A and B are subjected to a process to entangle them and verified. These can now go their separate ways disconnected yet remaining entangled. Causing a change in the state of A will at the same moment change the state of B , even if it is on another continent. Causing a change in the state of B will at the same moment change the state of A. Streaming serial data on a single channel would be indistinct from random noise. So you have multiple channels relaying binary code in parallel utilizing error correcting code. Such schemes have been adapted for quantum computer processing to address decoherence.
This author attempts to explain how this can be achieved _
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1055289/pg1

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-scientists-quantum-entanglement...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/science/scientists-report-...
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/quantum-entanglement-...

ave369 - 6-8-2015 at 00:56

As far as I know, entanglement works like this. You have two cards, an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face down. You don't know which is which. You carry one of the cards to Mars. When you are on Mars, you flip the card and see it's ace of spades. And from this, you instantly know that the other card, back on Earth, is an ace of diamonds. No information is transmitted.

franklyn - 6-8-2015 at 05:57

Quote: Originally posted by ave369

As far as I know, No information is transmitted.

A classical rationalization of a quantum process is a good starting point. Real cards are a one shot deal. Unlike the cards entanglement is ongoing. Flip that card again and half the time you get a different result. Since you can change the result again and again , that provides a channel to send information. All that's required is synchronization by some rule as to when to look ( collapse the indeterminate state ).

annaandherdad - 6-8-2015 at 06:49

Quote: Originally posted by ave369

As far as I know, entanglement works like this. You have two cards, an ace of spades and an ace of diamonds, face down. You don't know which is which. You carry one of the cards to Mars. When you are on Mars, you flip the card and see it's ace of spades. And from this, you instantly know that the other card, back on Earth, is an ace of diamonds. No information is transmitted.

Yes, this is right. One must remember that the predictions of quantum mechanics are statistical, and that they apply to successive measurements made on an ensemble of identically prepared systems. In simple examples of entanglement, the ensemble is created by letting certain particles at rest decay, that split into two particles, which naturally move in opposite directions to conserve momentum. If the decaying particle has no spin, and the daughter particles do, then the spins of the decay products are correlated. An example of this is the decay of a pi-0 meson (spin 0) into two photons (spin 1). Another example that would work in principle is the 3s->2p transition in hydrogen.

A classical model of this is two observers, one on Venus, the other on Mars, with the earth half way in between (or something like this). On earth we fire rockets, one to Mars and one to Venus. Before firing them, we flip a coin and put a red ball in one randomly chosen rocket, and a green ball in the other one. When the observer on Mars opens his/her rocket and finds a ball of one color, he/she instantly knows that the other observer has a ball of the opposite color. No information is transferred, and no communication between Mars and Venus has taken place.

If communication faster than light were possible, you could cause your grandparents to be killed before your parents were born. If you want to talk about faster-than-light travel, you have to explain how causal paradoxes like this can be avoided (among other things).

blogfast25 - 6-8-2015 at 07:29

Quote: Originally posted by annaandherdad

If you want to talk about faster-than-light travel, you have to explain how causal paradoxes like this can be avoided (among other things).

'franklyn' is totally above that, completely exempt. Not that long ago he supported a Pakistani crackpot and his 'water car', who openly claimed the Laws of Thermodynamics didn't apply to his 'invention'. Franklyn didn't bat an eyelid because in Alex Jones' world 'minor obstacles' like that are simply overcome by the 'imagination', you see? If you just 'open your mind' the truly impossible becomes a doddle in franklyn's world. 'franklyn in wonderland'...

If you disagree with franklyn, you're just not open minded enough but as Carl Sagan said “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”

[Edited on 6-8-2015 by blogfast25]

franklyn - 6-8-2015 at 07:57

Teleportation is experimentally done and certainly constitutes tranfer of information.
The problem is overcoming noise and interference — see post immediately above here.

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-scientists-quantum-entanglement...
" quantum entanglement allows for carrying out quantum teleportation, wherein a quantum object, for example, an atom, in a certain state in one laboratory transmits its quantum state to another object in another laboratory."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/science/scientists-report-...
" physicists / / reported that they were able to reliably teleport information between two quantum bits separated by three meters, or about 10 feet."
" using electrons trapped in diamonds at extremely low temperatures. The researchers were able to establish a spin, or value, for electrons, and then read the value reliably.

Quantum non-locality based on finite speed causal influences leads to superluminal signaling
http://tinyurl.com/n9oou2y
or else click on the DOI: 10.1038/NPHYS2460 , link at the bottom of this article _
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/quantum-entanglement-...

aga - 6-8-2015 at 08:29

Being failry open minded, i take the view that faster-than-light transfer of information might be possible, just not in this way.

annaandherdad - 6-8-2015 at 08:30

Quantum teleportation is more than just entanglement---it is the copying of a quantum state from one place to another, and to do it you have to transfer classical information by ordinary means. This always takes place at velocities no greater than that of light.

It always bewilders me

franklyn - 10-8-2015 at 10:49

Given all the thou shalt nots , what's the point in doing experiments , when everything already known is all that will ever be known.
Rituals are not experiments and the clergy that perform them are not scientists. Ring the bell , close the book , quench the candle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell,_book,_and_candle#Ritual

aga - 10-8-2015 at 13:37

Not sure i can believe i'm saying this, but here goes :

You definitely have a Good point there Franklyn.

If anyone believes that 'This is All there Is' then they need to look further, and harder.

Barely anything is currently known or fully understood.

Experimentation is certainly how we got started with getting to this point of Knowledge.

blogfast25 - 10-8-2015 at 15:22

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

Given all the thou shalt nots , what's the point in doing experiments , when everything already known is all that will ever be known.

Sooner or later he was going to start strawmanning, of course. No one here claimed anything remotely like the latter.

Considering you have basically shown zero experimentation so far, it should come as no surprise you don't really know how that works either. On the water car it took basically one silly Utoob and you were sold to the idea. Anyone who clearly showed it doesn't work was branded all sort of things. That water cars don't work was demonstrated conclusively when scientists developed Thermodynamics, by means of a mix of Rationalism and Empiricism. I don't expect you to either know or understand that.

You're a LIAR and not a very convincing one either...

blogfast25 - 10-8-2015 at 15:29

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Experimentation is certainly how we got started with getting to this point of Knowledge.

Not really, no. It's pointless to try and dissociate experimentation from pure reason. Often the latter precedes the former. But it's inaccurate to claim one is more important than the other or that one 'got us started'. Man has always formed world-views based on reason, then underpinned them by experiment/observation.

Empiricism/Rationalism is really like a dance, with both embracing each other and revolving around each other.

[Edited on 10-8-2015 by blogfast25]

IrC - 10-8-2015 at 17:54

You will have to provide better footnotes than your opinion blog. What is reason without knowledge. What knowledge did the first person to invent Damascus steel have about the chemistry of Iron and Carbon, how did they know that using leafy plant material in the fire would add Carbon Nanotubes to the sword? Is it not more logical to surmise they experimented with their fires using whatever was available in their local area that would burn, discovering by accident the latest sword was far harder than the ones they made before. I would call this 'experimenting' as well as making do with what was available to perform their experiments. Being done with no prior knowledge of Carbon Steel, no hope of understanding Nanotubes, how much reason could they apply. This can be said in so many areas of the science we take for granted today. Reasoning came with knowledge which came through experimental trial and error. We are not talking about esoteric philosophy where Greek scholars sat around thinking about the metaphysical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel

I could have picked another subject of ancient experimentation but cleaning my San Mai III blade brought up the thought of the ancient invention of Damascus steel. Having no prior knowledge one must wonder how much reason the first scientists to live could have applied to their 'experimenting'.

blogfast25 - 10-8-2015 at 18:47

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

We are not talking about esoteric philosophy where Greek scholars sat around thinking about the metaphysical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel

Yeah, I mean Greek scholars just 'sat around thinking about the metaphysical', of course, who knew? [insert 'eyes rolling to heaven' emoticon]. Ever heard about Indian (Eastern), ancient Greek, Arabic (Islamic, boo hiss!

) mathematical achievements? Or do they count as 'experimentation'? Or the 'metaphysical'? Dear G-d... Not everything fits into your narrow American utilitarian model, IrC.

Yes, accidental discoveries are frequent, usually quickly followed by reasoning, extrapolations, experimentation in presumed analogous situations etc etc. More experimentation, more reasoning, more experimentation. You seem to be wanting to make my point for me!

I suppose your entry on Damascus Steel counts as a footnote?

[Edited on 11-8-2015 by blogfast25]

IrC - 10-8-2015 at 21:09

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

We are not talking about esoteric philosophy where Greek scholars sat around thinking about the metaphysical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel

[Edited on 11-8-2015 by blogfast25]

What because I did not post 50 megabytes of data to cover all things in human history, instead focusing on one example you take this as providing yet another point of attack. Where was the justification in my post to provide reason for yet another personal attack.

I don't know about others here but I for one am fed up and sick of the way you respond to and treat members on this site. You do not know anything about me with your false judgmental view on how you think I or others think or where I am coming from saying things such as "narrow American utilitarian model". Your sickeningly PC liberal mindset is destroying Europe with no go zones increasing in size and number day by day. Enjoy your future. Oh by the way nice calling another member a liar as is typical with you in your never ending attack the person mentality. As I said in another thread have fun personally attacking members and turning yet another thread into trash. No science you engage in justifies this never ending personal assault on members you despise. If the mods on this site are OK with the pattern you have established and keep pursuing every time anyone you personally hate dares to speak or post anything then so be it. This used to be a decent site. Have fun turning it into crap.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/yes-there-are-no-go-zones-in-euro...

http://swedenreport.org/2015/05/18/police-yes-there-are-no-g...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/02/swedish-police-release-ext...

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/swedish-ambu...

http://www.siotw.org/news_english.item.415/no-go-zones-for-n...

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://newsweekly.com.au/article...

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/23/report...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cFYmhQMks8

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/muslim_sacra...

http://10news.dk/horror-night-in-swedish-muslim-ghetto-gang-...

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/sweden-77-...

http://mrconservative.com/2013/03/6673-ten-horrifying-storie...

blogfast25 - 11-8-2015 at 05:50

13 links about 'Da Mooooslims are a coming!' in one post of a thread titled "Instantaneous Communication Without Electromagnetic Signals" and all because someone disagrees with you. Yet you talk about others 'turning threads into trash'! You can't see the inconsistency there?

phlogiston - 11-8-2015 at 06:28

This thread wasn't very good to begin with, but this is not improving it gentlemen.

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

Causing a change in the state of B will at the same moment change the state of A

You are not making a change to B. You are only measuring its state and will find that it correlates with the state of A when you measure that and compare the measurements.

You could argue that the act of measuring it changes its state, but the change is only from an 'undecided' state to 'known' state. That does not allow you to transmit information.

[Edited on 11-8-2015 by phlogiston]

annaandherdad - 11-8-2015 at 07:15

phlogiston---exactly.

aga---if you go around trying experiments in your garage to see if sometimes maybe energy is not conserved, you are wasting your time.

If you try experiments to see if sometimes entropy decreases on its own, you are wasting your time.

Does that mean that scientists know everything? No, of course not. But it means that if you want to question these principles, it must be done intelligently, with full comprehension of their theoretical and experimental basis. You can question the theory behind principles like these, but you have to know the existing theory. You can look for experimental violations, but you have to know where to look.

So, there is the Maxwell demon, a theoretical challenge to the second law. As it turns out, the demon leads to greater understanding of the second law, but not a violation.

There is an anecdote that at a certain point the US patent office started to refuse to consider patent applications for perpetual motion machines, unless a working model were submitted. This caused a great deal of cursing among crank inventors, but no working models.

It turns out that energy is not conserved in general relativity, not globally, anyway. But general relativity was a profound revision of concepts of concepts such as energy, and it was definitely intelligent and took account of existing theory. In all experimental and observational tests to date, general relativity has been proven correct.

People used to think that parity was conserved. But some theorists made an intelligent question about whether this was so, and suggested an experiment to test the matter. The experiment was done quickly, and they were proven right. This was a case (particle physics) where the experiments take some effort, so experimental progress takes time. And the violation of parity would probably have been discovered experimentally some day eventually, but it was found more quickly through by this input from theorists. Meanwhile, the experimentalists know where to look.

For example, they look where existing theory has not yet been tested. For example, we know that Newton's law of gravitation works very well on the distance scale of the solar system. Does it also hold at small distance scales, like centimeter or less? Recent experiments have shown that it does, down to a small fraction of a centimeter. Does it hold at very large distance scales, like the size of a galaxy? Observational tests of this question have led to the discovery of dark matter, apparently not violations of Newton's law. There is a lot that is not known about dark matter, so that's where observers and experimentalists are looking now.

The speed of light is like that, that is, the principle that no matter or information can be conveyed at velocities greater than the speed of light. This is a basic consequence of special relativity, and it tied up with the causal structure of space and time (see the causal paradox I mentioned above, about going backwards in time). Special relativity has been tested experimentally, and it is known to be valid over almost all parameter regimes accessible to experiment. It is possible that there are violations of this principle? Yes, in fact it seems likely that there are, but they occur at the Planck scale, where gravity and quantum mechanics come together. Experimental tests at this scale are almost impossible, but people are trying anyway. These are intelligent experiments, fully informed by the existing theory.

In any case, the notion that entanglement can lead to communication faster than light is a basic misunderstanding of quantum theory and relativity. And franklyn cited a paper on entanglement with a headline suggesting that the paper dealt with superluminal propagation of information. The paper does no such thing. Did he read it?

blogfast25 - 11-8-2015 at 07:58

Quote: Originally posted by annaandherdad

Does that mean that scientists know everything? No, of course not. But it means that if you want to question these principles, it must be done intelligently, with full comprehension of their theoretical and experimental basis. You can question the theory behind principles like these, but you have to know the existing theory. You can look for experimental violations, but you have to know where to look.

It's a point I've been making with respect to aga several times. Unfortunately he seems slow in learning that lesson.

If one believes (more or less) that 'we know nothing' then the idea of almost random experimentation to generate knowledge must be quite appealing. Fortunately the former part of that assertion is inaccurate. We may know little in the face of 'all possible knowledge' but we know a lot is specific areas and these are the ones we are dealing with in science.

It's been said that those who know relatively little about a given subject tend to overestimate their competence in that field, whereas those who do know something tend to underestimate their competence. QED, I think...

[Edited on 11-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 11-8-2015 at 08:35

Quote:

It's a point I've been making with respect to aga several times. Unfortunately he seems slow in learning that lesson.

I resemble that remark.

My point is simply that random experimentation can lead places that thinking inside the same box all the time could never arrive at.

Is X possible ?
... scans known knowledge ... No.
I just did X with a bean can and a bee.
Impossible ! It cannot be !

Yes, it can bee, just extremely rare these days for it to happen, as experimentation is more Directed and not as random.

[Edited on 14-8-2015 by Bert]

The standard model

franklyn - 11-8-2015 at 21:19

Before you can know where you're going you have to know where you've been.

www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/08/11/how-quantum-random...

www.youtube.com/v/DbbWx2COU0E

The facts are that because everyone is entirely convinced that no one is smart enough to beat this problem therefore no one will.
Hubris is not a proof. Just because you observe something is , never ever has meant it cannot be otherwise.

PHILOU Zrealone - 12-8-2015 at 04:23

And once you know for sure where you are, you have lost your ondulatory properties (wavelenght and frequency)

It doesn't matter where you start from...you will end up in the grave, or inside the closest black hole (or from a Systemics point of view into the strongest and nearest attractor)

[Edited on 12-8-2015 by PHILOU Zrealone]