Faster than light communication and breaking entanglement

a reply to: mbkennel

Asked and answered.

I'm tired of answering the same questions over and over again. read the previous post. You guys haven't refuted anything I have said and until you do, I'm done answering the same questions over and over again.

It's plain as day and I have provided published papers and experiments that back up everything I'm saying.

It's been out under patent # Patent Number: 6,025,810 You can transmit a signal faster than the speed of light.

With all the crafts the USA has you have to keep in contact with all those spaceships. We have the Technology to take ET home. Time Travel to.

HYPER-LIGHT-SPEED ANTENNA Primary Examiner—Don Wong
[76] David L. Strom, 1615 Geneva St.,
Aurora, Colo. 80010
Inventor:
Appl. No.: 08/942,824
Filed: Oct. 2, 1997
Related US. Application Data
Provisional application No. 60/028,204, Oct. 2, 1996.
Int. Cl.7 ..................................................... .. H01Q 1/32
US. Cl. ........................ .. 343/787; 343/711; 343/721;
343/895
Field of Search ................................... .. 343/711, 713,
343/721, 725, 787, 788, 895

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you're not checking for spin.

Say you have two entangled pulses of light containing entangled photons. You send one to Alice and one to Bob. When the photons are highly correlated, they will have a high signal to noise ratio and will have a strong correlation between arrival time and frequency.

You have a second channel. The same thing applies.

A third channel, the same thing applies.

Bob is now looking at these three channels who each have a high signal to noise ratio and are strongly correlated between arrival time and frequency. This can be determined beforehand because you're not sending information from Alice to Bob based on spin.

So Alice wants to change Bob's middle channel to an 0. She breaks entanglement in the second channel and the second channel will have a weaker signal to noise ratio and it's arrival time and frequency will be different than the strongly correlated signals in channels 1 and 3.

Now it simply becomes an engineering problem.

Let's look at this from a classical point of view.

Let's say Alice and Bob work at a baseball field. They line up 6 baseball players that's playing catch and they're separated by a barrier, so they can't see each other. The baseball can be either black or white. This doesn't matter to Bob and Alice when it comes to communicating though.

Bob and Alice determine that there's a high signal to noise ratio because the baseball's are going back and forth between players at a frequency and arrival time that shows they're strongly correlated.

So on Bob's side, there's 3 players catching the ball at a frequency and arrival time that shows high correlation. On Alice side, there's 3 players catching the ball at a frequency and arrival time that shows they're strongly correlated.

So now, Alice wants to send Bob a message and she can send Bob a different message by breaking the entanglement in 1 of the 3 channels.

She breaks entanglement in channel 1, lunch is at 12:00.

She breaks entanglement in channel 2, lunch is at 12:30.

She breaks entanglement in channel 3, lunch is at 1:00.

Alice can send this message to Bob faster than light.

Let's extrapolate it even further. Let's say Alice and her baseball players are on the sun and Bob and his players are on earth. The sun goes dark.

The people on earth will still get sunshine for 8 minutes on earth. Alice can tell Bob instantly and faster than light can reach the rest of the people on earth. So again I ask:

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

You didnt answer my question and its a simple one at that how do we tell whats signal and whats noise? What are we using a magic bean?? See lets take opticalfiber communication channels which are impossible to tap. When trying to intercept the transmission of data over such a channel, quantum entanglement of photons is inevitably destroyed and the legitimate recipient of the message immediately detects interference. this is very useful but how do we know if we only send one laser to a location. Heres the fun part we dont. Only when we combine the two beams together on the other end can we tell. This goes into that +! -1 stuff i explained to you a while ago they cancel each other out leaving only our original signal. But someone taps into one of our cables all we get is noise this is called destructive interference. this is that whole signal to noise ratio you dont seem to understand at all. see we need someway to differentiate our entangled photons from those pesky regular photons that tag along. to separate them is really easy recombine the beam. Our entangled photons disappear as if by magic or in your case magic bean.

If we choose not to recombine our two laser than we have this option we filter out our entangled photons by knowing which path they took simply have two paths a beam can take block one and we know that photons are not entangled. we remove them and we have a baseline to figure out what most of our entangled photons are but again some lose decoherence in transporting them. But to do this we have to know two things which path was blocked and for how long. This is more of a passive interference since the only thing we are playing with is a fluctuating frequency. But again our frequencies would look random to us until we have the information.

Now signal/noise ratio and what is it you seem really unclear on this so lets see if i can help if a signal/noise ratio falls below a certain critical threshold, quantum entanglement vanishes we end up with no entangled particles at all in our beam just noise. Any time we transfer light we lose entangled particles along the way as they break decoherence. Basically a fancy word for the link between our photons breaks. You keep quoting a portion of a paper you dont understand. And this is why i was trying to see what you thought a signal/noise ratio is. The only way i can know what our ratio is happens again when i compare two data sets. Are you beginning to see why its hard to send a signal between two points instantly. But oddly great to know if say someone tapped into your data stream.

a reply to: dragonridr

What does any of this have to do with anything I've said?

Let me highlight a key portion that you must of skipped over.

Bob is now looking at these three channels who each have a high signal to noise ratio and are strongly correlated between arrival time and frequency. This can be determined beforehand because you're not sending information from Alice to Bob based on spin.

So Bob or Alice wouldn't see any randomness because they already know these things. It's really that simple. You're all over the place hoping something sticks but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Again, it's not dependent on spin. It's not dependent on entanglement-non-entanglement.

Everything you're saying is basically a hodge podge of gobbledy gook.

Simply show why Alice and Bob couldn't communicate this way. In the set up listed in my last post, walk us through the same set up and show what will stop Alice from sending information to Bob in the way described in the last post.

It's like reading a post by Ted Kaczynski. You're on a fishing expedition and you're not making any sense.

Again, it's simple.

When Bob is looking at his 3 channel system with Alice, he will see 111 on the screen. When Alice breaks entanglement in channel 2, Bob computer will read, 101.

If Alice breaks entanglement in channel 1, Bob's computer will read 011.

This can occur faster than light.

Bob is now looking at these three channels who each have a high signal to noise ratio and are strongly correlated between arrival time and frequency. This can be determined beforehand because you're not sending information from Alice to Bob based on spin.

a reply to: dragonridr

I thought I'd chime in here to outline some public research NEC and Toshiba
have done on the construction of Quantum Wells to hold and shield from
any outside influence trapped Xenon atoms within standardized CMOS chips.
(i.e. using CMOS means it's CHEAP to manufacture!)

Originally designed as form of ultra-FAST
non-volatile RAM storage, NEC and Toshiba have
experimented with ADDING a secondary
OUTSIDE container to each Xenon quantum well
which contains a gaseous or plasma medium
which IS AFFECTED by ANY change in the
quantum spin-state of the trapped Xenon atom.
.
This GETS AROUND the NO INFORMATION TRANSFER
issue because we are NOT reading and breaking the
spin state ITSELF of the trapped and entangled
Xenon (or OTHER noble gas!) atom but rather we
are reading the CHANGE in charge, phase or
other affective change type ONLY in the outside
containing medium itself using standardized
and INEXPENSIVE electronic processes.
.
You DO NEED, however, FOUR quantum wells for
FTL communications because you MUST use a pair
of entangled quantum wells in a UNIDIRECTIONAL mode
of ON/OFF databit exchange. (i.e. Half-Duplex communication!)
.
For example: Let us say there are 2 quantum wells on
Earth which are entangled with 2 Quantum wells on Pluto.

Laser pulses are pumped into the gas or plasma encasing
of the first Earth quantum well which then changes the
"quantum spin-state" of the Xenon atom within the first Earth
quantum well. That "spin-state change" is IMMEDIATELY reflected
in the quantum spin-state of the first RECEIVING quantum well on Pluto.

The receiving quantum well on Pluto effects a change in the
charge or phase of the outer encasing well of the first Located-on-Pluto
quantum well. That change in state of the encasing medium
is read using time-domain sampling (i.e. X-number of cycles per second)
which can then use simple CMOS electronics to form a
bit-stream. This forms a single half-duplex line from
Earth to Pluto. For the reverse communications,
the 2nd quantum well on Pluto gets its encasing
medium changed by laser pulses which is then
IMMEDIATELY reflected in the OUTGOING
Pluto quantum well which also immediately affects
the quantum spin-state 2nd entangled Earth quantum well.
That 2nd Earth quantum well spin-state change then causes
a change in the encasing medium which can be
read by electronic means as the
Pluto-to-Earth data stream.

And because the Quantum Spin-State changes
of trapped Xenon atoms can be sampled at
rates past the Terahertz range, you could
fit 8192 quantum wells into the SAME space
as a modern day DRAM chip which means
bit-stream data transfer rates well in the
PETABYTES PER SECOND range if you aggregate
all the entangled quantum wells into a parallel
streaming configuration !!!!

Each quantum well receives 8 ON/OFF bits which are
represented by UP/DOWN Quantum Spin-State Changes
within a specified period of sampled time-domain (i.e. 8 bits per
100 Picoseconds)...those 8-on/off bits create a single-byte of data
which are then formed into integer and real numbers, text strings
or other records to form the data stream that can be interpreted
as Still Photos, Audio, Video, Text Messages, etc.!
The type of atom trapped in a Quantum Well and the speed
of the outer encasing medium's ability to change it's state
determines the final data rate (i.e. speed of communications).
The faster the medium the can change state, the shorter the
time I can have between each time domain sample and the
more INCOMING or OUTGOING bits I can then send and receive
per second!

I do have some papers which I will point out a little bit later
when I get home from work which should illustrate what I am
talking about.

a reply to: StargateSG7

Great, I look forward to seeing those papers.

a reply to: StargateSG7

Need to see the paper but looks to me what they are describing is a photon detector. Light hit's our zenon atom sending it into an excited state. But also using the quantum well we could get what's called the quantum hall effect. But I still don't see how any of this would help FTL communication. I see huge problems if you tried to use this as communication.But find a paper be neat to discuss.But I will say this sounds familiar I think it was an article I read on space reflectors. Meaning we can use lasers to communicate through space without the need of a telescope. It means a huge step in Laser reflector communication.but someone appears to have altered it somewhat post source please.

a reply to: The only 1 who knows the
A patent is not evidence of anything, let alone an extraordinary claim.

originally posted by: mbkennel
Define specifically how to measure "signal to noise ratio" in this setup using information only available on one side, and specifically what you mean by entanglement breaking reducing signal to noise ratio. The details matter.

The details matter a great deal. As neoholographic's previous thread led into more detail, that's where it fell apart, when neoholographic's scheme relied on a detector with properties that didn't exist and couldn't be built, and it became clear he didn't understand the details of what he's talking about.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mbkennel

Asked and answered.

I don't see where you provided any details. You're kind of like the admiral who said "we can immobilize the enemy navy by simply draining all the water out of the oceans". When asked how to do that, he said: "don't bother me with details, any engineer worth his salt can figure out how to do that".

You claim any engineer worth his salt can measure the signal to noise ratio on only one side of an entanglement, without waiting for light speed data from the other side of the entanglement, yet you have provided no details on how this is to be done. Waving your hands and saying "any engineer worth his salt can do it" won't accomplish it. They don't know how to drain all the water out of the oceans either.

I realized in your previous thread that you didn't understand the details, which is why unlike mbkennel, I didn't ask for those in this thread. Instead I've been asking you to just demonstrate FTL communication useful information. I don't think you can, but if you at least tried you'd have a better understanding of the problems with your proposed scheme. And if you do succeed, you'll be a famous person who figured out how to do something thought to be very unlikely to be possible.

Here is a diagram showing one way signal to noise can be measured, which involves getting information back from the other party at the speed of light:

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

if the sent and retained signals are truly entangled, they will be simultaneously strongly correlated in both arrival time and frequency. The much stronger initial correlation of the entangled beams allows reflected photons to be distinguished from background photons with a much higher signal to noise when they are “decoded” by recombining them with the retained signal. (The decoder is basically the reverse of the original entangler—a sort of “disentangler”—which only lets through the tiny residual correlation that matches the original entanglement.) Even though the entanglement doesn’t survive, a classical correlation survives that is stronger than would exist in the absence of entanglement in the first place. The enhancement in signal to noise is by a factor d, where d is the number of optical modes involved in the entanglement. In this way, the presence (or absence) of an object can be determined with far less light than a classical experiment would require.

In that signal to noise measurement, Bob is sending photons to Alice at the speed of light, where Alice can measure the signal to noise and this allows secure communication between Bob and Alice. But it's not faster than light.

You haven't shown how to measure signal to noise from only one end of the entanglement despite repeated requests for you to do so.

originally posted by: The only 1 who knows the
It's been out under patent # Patent Number: 6,025,810 You can transmit a signal faster than the speed of light.

There is also a patent that says an entire encyclopedia can be compressed to one word, and then restored...do you believe that one? You can't believe things are possible just because patents are granted...unless you're a fool.

forbes.com...

Patent No. 6,025,810, issued in February, is for an antenna that sends signals faster than the speed of light–impossible, if you believe the decades of science based on Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Patent 5,533,051, issued in 1996, covers a technique that purports to compress any data set by at least one bit without loss of information–a process that, if done recursively, could shrink the Encyclopaedia Britannica to a single word from which the original could be flawlessly reconstructed. The very idea is preposterous. Yet the patent office agonized for three years over the application–and in the end approved it.

a reply to: dragonridr

Will post links to papers in a bit...still on mobile comm and am not at work yet...in reply to your
earlier point, you cannot read the trapped Xenon atoms
themselves with a photon beam otherwise you
will break the quantum entanglement.

You can, however, use a photon beam to read
the current state of a gaseous or plasma medium
surrounding or encasing a quantum well that has been affected by any change in quantum spin-state of the trapped Xenon atom.

And vice versa it SEEMS to be possible to
use a pulsed beam to change the state or charge
of the gaseous or plasma quantum well encasement which then somehow CHANGES
the quantum spin-state of the trapped Xenon
atom WITHOUT breaking its entanglement
with the far away quantum well!

The reason why entanglement is left unbroken
during a "read cycle" of the encasement medium
is unclear and the reason why a change in the
outside quantum well encasement causes a change in quantum spin state (write cycle) without
breaking entanglement is also unclear. It is also unclear WHY 4 quantum wells are required to enact
a data communications stream. It seems each
pair of entangled quantum wells can be used
ONLY in a unidirectional manner. Trying to use
a pair of entangled quantum wells in a full duplex communications configuration BREAKS the quantum entanglemen, so a half duplex communications configuration and FOUR
quantum wells MUST be used to enable
two-way communications.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for backing up everything I said.

Again, I have explained this over and over again and laid out how it will be done. I personally think some of you guys don't have a clue as to what I'm saying so you go on these silly fishing expeditions and quote things that you don't understand.

First off, the paper you're quoting from supports what I'm saying but it has a different goal. The goal of the paper is Quantum illumination. Whats that? It's a technique used to illuminate a distant object. I'm not trying to illuminate a distant object, I'm just communicating between Alice and Bob. Here's more from the article:

Quantum illumination [2], which was first proposed by Seth Lloyd, is a method to enhance the probability of detecting a far away object. The problem with just shining light on a far away object and looking for any reflected photons is that little light will be reflected and any that does may be hard to see against a thermal background of light. Lloyd showed that using an entangled photon state to illuminate the object could significantly enhance the observer’s ability to distinguish the reflected light from the background. What is surprising is that this enhancement survives even when the noisy background completely destroys the entanglement in transit.

So yes, if you're objective is to illuminate a distant object, in order to distinguish the reflected light from the background, Bob has to send his back to Alice or how would she illuminate the distant object? Apples & Oranges.

It does give more support to what I'm saying.


Alice and Bob are communicating, so Bob doesn't have to send anything back to Alice in order to detect a distant object. The article says this:

In contrast, if the sent and retained signals are truly entangled, they will be simultaneously strongly correlated in both arrival time and frequency.

EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!

If Alice and Bob have a 3 channel setup, and all three channels contain strongly correlated signals they will be strongly correlated in arrival time and frequency which will give you higher signal to noise.

Al three channels equals 111.

If Alice wants to send Bob 011,101 or 110 faster than light, she just breaks the entanglement in one of the three channels and the channel will have increased noise and a weaker signal which will also affect the arrival time and frequency.

Like you said earlier,

I'm not going to say FTL communication of useful information is impossible

Neither am I for the reasons listed in this thread!!

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: dragonridr

Will post links to papers in a bit...still on mobile comm and am not at work yet...in reply to your
earlier point, you cannot read the trapped Xenon atoms
themselves with a photon beam otherwise you
will break the quantum entanglement.

You can, however, use a photon beam to read
the current state of a gaseous or plasma medium
surrounding or encasing a quantum well that has been affected by any change in quantum spin-state of the trapped Xenon atom.

And vice versa it SEEMS to be possible to
use a pulsed beam to change the state or charge
of the gaseous or plasma quantum well encasement which then somehow CHANGES
the quantum spin-state of the trapped Xenon
atom WITHOUT breaking its entanglement
with the far away quantum well!

The reason why entanglement is left unbroken
during a "read cycle" of the encasement medium
is unclear and the reason why a change in the
outside quantum well encasement causes a change in quantum spin state (write cycle) without
breaking entanglement is also unclear. It is also unclear WHY 4 quantum wells are required to enact
a data communications stream. It seems each
pair of entangled quantum wells can be used
ONLY in a unidirectional manner. Trying to use
a pair of entangled quantum wells in a full duplex communications configuration BREAKS the quantum entanglemen, so a half duplex communications configuration and FOUR
quantum wells MUST be used to enable
two-way communications.

From your post I think you see the same problem I do.

a reply to: neoholographic

He's attempting to explain signal to noise and how to separate th e two. This is the point I keep trying to make to you. You seem to have a magic decoder.

a reply to: dragonridr

Again, more nonsense.

I'm not trying to detect a distant object and separate reflected light from the background, so I don't need to decode anything. I'm just communicating between Bob and Alice. I wish you guys would actually read the things you post.

The much stronger initial correlation of the entangled beams allows reflected photons to be distinguished from background photons with a much higher signal to noise when they are “decoded” by recombining them with the retained signal.

I'm not trying to distinguish reflected photons from background photons to detect a distant object. Can you guys at least read the things you post? The paper supports exactly what I've been saying the whole time!!

Quantum illumination [2], which was first proposed by Seth Lloyd, is a method to enhance the probability of detecting a far away object.

I'm not trying to detect a far away object, it's just FTL communication.

Here's another question you won't answer.

Explain why I would need decode anything if I'm not trying to detect a far away object and I ALREADY KNOW, that the signal in my channels are strongly correlated based on arrival time and frequency which will increase the signal to noise?

Another simple question.

a reply to: dragonridr

Here some images and links to papers and articles
which give a background on Quantum Well Entanglement
and the Manufacturing of such Faster-Than-Light (FTL)
Communications devices using standard (i.e. CHEAP!)
CMOS CHIP manufacturing techniques.

Thumbnail of How Quantum Wells MAY work
for entangled FTL communications.



Full-Size IMAGE of How Quantum Wells
MAY work for entangled FTL communications:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

---

Background on Quantum Wells:
en.wikipedia.org...

---

Background Primer on Quantum Entanglement:
en.wikipedia.org...

---

THIS TWO ARTICLES ARE THE BIG-KAHUNA PAPERS
showing that Quantum Well Entanglement can work!

"Optically induced multispin entanglement
in a semiconductor quantum well"

by

Jiming Bao1, Andrea V. Bragas1, Jacek K. Furdyna2 & Roberto Merlin1

www.nature.com...

...AND...

"High-Rate Entanglement Source via Two-Photon
Emission from Semiconductor Quantum Wells"
by
Alex Hayat, Pavel Ginzburg, and Meir Orensteina
Department of Electrical Engineering, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel

See PDF link:
www.arxiv.org...


---

Q-switching, also known as giant pulse formation or Q-spoiling,
is a technique by which a laser can be made to produce a pulsed output beam:
Used to SAMPLE a medium affected by a Quantum Spin-State change!
en.wikipedia.org...

---

Example of Wideband CMOS switches used to define a bit-stream from
the current charge state of a quantum well encasing medium:
Used to SAMPLE a medium affected by a Quantum Spin-State change
and form the actual byte-oriented digital data stream:
www.analog.com...

---

One of MANY methods used to sample and determine the
current state of a quantum well encasement medium:

"Interplay of weak interactions in the atom-by-atom
condensation of xenon within quantum boxes"

by

Sylwia Nowakowska,
Aneliia Wäckerlin,
Shigeki Kawai,
Toni Ivas,
Jan Nowakowski,
Shadi Fatayer,
Christian Wäckerlin,
Thomas Nijs,
Ernst Meyer,
Jonas Björk
Meike Stöhr,
Lutz H. Gade
& Thomas A. Jung

See link to Nature Article
www.nature.com...

---

Saturated absorption at nanowatt power levels
using metastable xenon in a high-finesse optical
cavity

by

G. T. Hickman,* T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson

---

Sub-doppler spectroscopy of xenon by diode laser

by

Beverini, N. ; Universite di Pisa ; Genovesi, G.L. ; Strumia, F.

---

Patent for Building Micron scale or less quantum wells:

Back-biasing to populate strained layer quantum wells
US 6680496 B1
by
Richard Hammond,
Glyn Braithwaite
of Amberwave Systems Corp.

www.google.com...

---

READ THESE BOOKS for getting more info
on quantum wells and lattices :

Properties of III-V Quantum Wells and Superlattices
edited by
P. K. Bhattacharya, Pallab Bhattacharya

..AND...

Heterostructures and Quantum Devices
edited by
Norman G. Einspruch, William R. Frensley

---

Make your Quantum Chips go FASTER by supercooling them
with nano-scale ON-CHIP cooling systems:

General overview link:
wccftech.com...

Peer reviewed version of article:

Energy-filtered cold electron transport at room temperature

by

Pradeep Bhadrachalam,
Ramkumar Subramanian,
Vishva Ray,
Liang-Chieh Ma,
Weichao Wang,
Jiyoung Kim,
Kyeongjae Cho
& Seong Jin Koh

See link:
www.nature.com...

---

I HOPE THESE LINKS HELP YOU get a better understanding
on how Quantum Entanglement within CMOS Chip-based
Quantum Wells CHANGES EVERYTHING in terms of high
bitrate Faster-Than-Light data communications !!!

a reply to: StargateSG7

AND JUST TO REMEMBER ... We are NOT sampling or reading/writing
to the trapped Xenon atom(s) themselves which would BREAK the
Quantum Entanglement BUT RATHER we are reading from and writing to
the outer encasement mechanism which IS INDIRECTLY AFFECTED BY the
current quantum spin state of the trapped atom OR will INDIRECTLY EFFECT
A CHANGE in the quantum spin-state of the trapped Xenon atom(s).

HOW this change of the OUTER encasement medium is affected by
or causes an effect on the trapped Xenon atom(s) without breaking
the quantum entanglement of the widely-separated quantum well
pairs IS UNCLEAR at this time!

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

What does any of this have to do with anything I've said?

Let me highlight a key portion that you must of skipped over.

Bob is now looking at these three channels who each have a high signal to noise ratio and are strongly correlated between arrival time and frequency. This can be determined beforehand because you're not sending information from Alice to Bob based on spin.

So Bob or Alice wouldn't see any randomness because they already know these things. It's really that simple. You're all over the place hoping something sticks but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Again, it's not dependent on spin. It's not dependent on entanglement-non-entanglement.

So, then if it's not based on entanglement what is it dependent on? What's so special then? You're not the one giving precise enough details about the experiment and measurement algorithm.

Everything you're saying is basically a hodge podge of gobbledy gook.

Simply show why Alice and Bob couldn't communicate this way. In the set up listed in my last post, walk us through the same set up and show what will stop Alice from sending information to Bob in the way described in the last post.

Nothing, but it goes at light speed like classical communication. Alice sends noise and then sends not-noise. And by this I mean sequential in time delta = 1 timestep autoorrelation betwen observable bits on Bob's detector in one channel. If you get 50 bits you could then distinguish a 1 from a 0 decoded at high accuracy if the '1' signal means sequential high correlation and the 0 signal means sequential no correlation.

Those photons get there at time >= D/c with D being the distance between alice and bob.

originally posted by: neoholographic


In contrast, if the sent and retained signals are truly entangled, they will be simultaneously strongly correlated in both arrival time and frequency.

EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!

If Alice and Bob have a 3 channel setup, and all three channels contain strongly correlated signals they will be strongly correlated in arrival time and frequency which will give you higher signal to noise.

What exactly is correlated with what? Which photons, which frequencies? The results at each end can be strongly correlated but only when you know the results at all ends. That's the usual meaning of "correlation" in quantum entanglement work. You can compute any sorts of "correlations" between any observables; there are many. Which ones are interesting?

If you want it to be interesting, you have to show that the experimental setup can measure this 'correlation' using only information available on one end rather than just asserting "detect correlation" without being clear about what this means.

If that can't be done, then it's a setup to broadcast information from some central location.

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: dragonridr

Here some images and links to papers and articles
which give a background on Quantum Well Entanglement
and the Manufacturing of such Faster-Than-Light (FTL)

Does one of them say something about sending useful information faster than light? I already knew random information could be sent faster than light; this isn't a matter of debate. I went through them quickly and didn't see anything that mentioned useful information being sent faster than light.