Faster than light communication and breaking entanglement

a reply to: neoholographic

Here is the link your quoting,

physics.aps.org...

I'll let people read it and decide for themselves what it means.

I stand by my posts. Looks like the OP will never provide any sources for communication through time.

This 2006 paper may better explain what the OP is talking about:

Is Faster-Than-Light Communication Possible? - Raymond Jenson (PDF):

When the apparatus is in configuration (a), the stream of photons 2 forms an interference pattern. While in
configuration (b), no interference pattern is formed. By repeatedly switching the apparatus from one configuration
to the other, while allowing a sufficient number of correlated photon pairs to be emitted between switching and
standardizing switching intervals, a sequence of bits of information may be sent from the left side of the apparatus to
the right, when a particular bit is associated with the appearance, or lack thereof, of an interference pattern on the
right.

...

CONCLUSION

Current “orthodox” quantum theory maintains that it is impossible to transmit information faster than the speed of
light. However above, it has been shown that it should in fact be possible, if “orthodox” quantum theory holds good.
The conflict between conclusions has to do with the fact that in the former argument, it is assumed that the only way
to remotely extract information using correlated photons is to rely on measurement of probabilities of eigenvalues.
In the method explained above, the uncertainty of a single eigenvalue was measured instead. Depending on what
was done to the photons on the left, the uncertainty of photon momentum (or wavelength) measurement on the right
was increased or decreased, as evidenced by the appearance or disappearance of an interference pattern,
respectively. The monochromatic photons on the right yielded only one momentum eigenvalue; so it’s probability
of occurence was always 100%. But the uncertainty in momentum measurement did change. It is this change in
uncertainty which makes faster-than light communication possible.

Even if this could be made to work, we're many decades from technology to make it practical.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Of course that's the link to the article about the paper.

Entanglement's Benefit Survives an Entanglement-Breaking Channel

It's exactly what I have been saying. The paper is pointing out that you can still detect a signal to noise ratio even after breaking entanglement.

Here's another quote from the article:

In Physical Review Letters, Zheshen Zhang and colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, have now demonstrated experimentally that the benefits of entanglement can survive even when it is broken [1]. Using a technique called quantum illumination, the group established a secure channel of communication between two parties that relied on sending one of a pair of entangled photons through a noisy environment. Even though the initial entanglement didn’t survive the passage, it was enough to guarantee the communicated signal was secure. The demonstration opens up the possibility that quantum communication and metrology tasks can occur in environments previously thought too noisy for entanglement to be useful.

Exactly what I have been saying!

This quote has nothing to do with faster than light information transmission.

It also has nothing to do with communication into the past.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Of course it does. Explain to me why you couldn't detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

a reply to: neoholographic

Oddly the title of the paper describes what it is talking about...

'A secure communication channel that relies on quantum entanglement survives despite the noisy break up of the entanglement itself.'

physics.aps.org...

Nothing about FTL and nothing about communicating to the past.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I remember that. There's a few different ways that people are talking about FTL communication. Also, I think it will be here sooner than people think. These networks and things like a quantum internet are already being worked on.

The delay will come because if you release something like this to the public, you have to make sure you can secure people's information. If you cant, then nobodies passwords or information on any networks we use now will be secure.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

I don't know what's so hard for you to grasp.

You keep quoting things that support what I'm saying. You haven't explained why:

You couldn't detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

You just quoted:

A secure communication channel that relies on quantum entanglement survives despite the noisy break up of the entanglement itself.'

EXACTLY!

If you have a channel where you break entanglement but in subsequent channels, entanglement isn't broken, in the first channel you will have a weaker signal to noise ratio.

a reply to: neoholographic

Again, nothing to do with FTL or communicating with the past. Your original post was all about faster than light communicating. This paper is about standard ways of signal transmissions including quantum entanglement to secure the standard signal transmission and improve reading it.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

What??

It has everything to do with it. I just explained it to you in simple terms and you still will not say why:

You couldn't detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

I have asked you three times know and you keep coming back with the same knee jerk response. The paper isn't about FTL communication, it's showing that even when entanglement is broken, there's still a signal to noise ratio that can be detected and be a benefit. Exactly what I have been saying. Now again, explain why:

You couldn't detect entanglement breaking in one information channel while you still have strong correlations and signal to noise ratios in the subsequent channels?

originally posted by: [post=18997641]dragonridr

But no information travels faster than light.

Info and physical ftl is possible when you stop time

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel
If your talking about fast computing well we are already doing it with quantum computers.
If your talking about FTL communication to cover great distances then we have a problem.

Lets say you do for arguments sake manage to entangle particles , and with a great break through you manage to create a communication code with the different spins allowing for ftl communication.
If you want ftl communication for just earth and solar system you might save a few minutes here and there but communication we already have is very fast as it is.

What do you think this would achieve? if you want to send communications great distances. ie light years away .. you have to fly 1 of the particles out their first. by the time that particle gets to its destination so many years have passed on earth that your revolutionary form of communication would be outdated and probably in a museum some where on Earth.

Catch 22

Q

Exactly...Unless you send the particle through a wormhole. Cool thread OP.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: [post=18997641]dragonridr

But no information travels faster than light.

Info and physical ftl is possible when you stop time

People see entanglement for secure communications not realizing you have to send it there at the speed of light and trap the other. It is impossible to send FTL communications short of putting a huge amount of energy into a worm hole and even than still have to get something out far enough to read it.

To send something light years onto space than create a stable worm hole between 2 points would take the energy of a sun not very practical.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: neoholographic

Awesome read

You seem to have a pretty decent understanding of the topic. Is this due to education, POOIAD (personal obsessive online information assimilation disorder)?

If it's the later, can you point to references online for further reading?

He fooled you! He makes a thread on this topic every so often and doesn't understand the current research. Here's a thread you can read where I and others try to patiently explain what's wrong with his ideas. He just ignores the corrections and keeps repeating the same misinformation.

Is faster than light communication possible? Yes

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: BogieSmiles
If the spin is established for both particles at the moment of entanglement, what is the mystery? When one observes the spin of one of the particles, they know the spin of the other. The spin of the other doesn't change; it remains as it was when it was entangled. We simply know now what it is. What am I missing? Isn't it like flipping a coin? If it comes up heads, we instantly know it isn't tails?

There is sufficient theory that suggests that the particles are "undefined" until one or the other is observed. At that point one is fixed at one spin (random) , and the other one instantly adopts the opposite spin.

That is suggested by various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. It is like Schrödinger's cat, is it dead or alive. Let's look. Oh good, its alive. Are you saying that it wasn't alive until we looked? And if it was dead, are you saying the act of looking killed it? I know theory suggests the superposition of states until a particle is observed, but what evidence is there?

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

What do you think this would achieve? if you want to send communications great distances. ie light years away .. you have to fly 1 of the particles out their first. by the time that particle gets to its destination so many years have passed on earth that your revolutionary form of communication would be outdated and probably in a museum some where on Earth.

Right now communication time with Mars can be up to 21 minutes, so yeah, FTL communication would be very useful for the exploration of even the moon.

a reply to: neoholographic

It's becoming increasingly clear that FTL communication is possible.

But how? There always has to be a communication to correlate the results for them to mean anything, and this communication can only be done through a conventional, near light speed channel.

Quite simply FTL communication is impossible because you would be sending messages back to a point in time before they were even sent.

But no information travels faster than light.

Info and physical ftl is possible when you stop time

It does not travel faster than time since it does not travel thru the media between the entangled particles and uses instant entanglement as a way to communicate. It can still be instant and not be faster than light travel so I agree that saying it is faster than light travel is technically wrong.

Quite simply FTL communication is impossible because you would be sending messages back to a point in time before they were even sent.

You should be able to achieve different time scale if you can get one of the particle to slowed in time than than the other. But if you cannot do that you will end up in instant communication and no time difference between the 2 particles. There might even be a natural law preventing time distortion on entangled particles that we have not found yet.

a reply to: game over man

But entanglement is a wormhole like phenomena. One particle in space time connected to another part of space time. The only way you get time travel is to have entangled pair in different time zones. And the change is instant in time not traversing the space in between.