Faster than light communication to the past is very possible

Here's more:

Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time

In 2012, Jay Olson and Timothy Ralph, both physicists at the University of Queensland in Australia, laid out a procedure to encrypt data so that it can be decrypted only at a specific moment in the future. Their scheme exploits quantum entanglement, a phenomenon in which particles or points in a field, such as the electromagnetic field, shed their separate identities and assume a shared existence, their properties becoming correlated with one another’s. Normally physicists think of these correlations as spanning space, linking far-flung locations in a phenomenon that Albert Einstein famously described as “spooky action at a distance.” But a growing body of research is investigating how these correlations can span time as well. What happens now can be correlated with what happens later, in ways that elude a simple mechanistic explanation. In effect, you can have spooky action at a delay.

These correlations seriously mess with our intuitions about time and space. Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later. Each of these events is the cause of the other, as if each were the first to occur. (Even a single observer can encounter this causal ambiguity, so it’s distinct from the temporal reversals that can happen when two observers move at different velocities, as described in Einstein’s special theory of relativity.)

www.quantamagazine.org...

This is a very good article and it shows entanglement in time which they call temporal correlations. Someone said earlier:

Nothing implies time-related anything.

This just doesn't make any sense. Of course it does and these experiments are directly related to time and entanglement.

To understand entanglement in time, it helps to first understand entanglement in space, as the two are closely related. In the spatial version of a classic entanglement experiment, two particles, such as photons, are prepared in a shared quantum state, then sent flying in different directions. An observer, Alice, measures the polarization of one photon, and her partner, Bob, measures the other. Alice might measure polarization along the horizontal axis while Bob looks along a diagonal. Or she might choose the vertical angle and he might measure an oblique one. The permutations are endless.

In the temporal case, though, the mystery is subtler, involving just a single polarized photon. Alice measures it, and then Bob remeasures it. Distance in space is replaced by an interval of time. The probability of their seeing the same outcome varies with the angle between the polarizers; in fact, it varies in just the same way as in the spatial case. On one level, this does not seem to be strange. Of course what we do first affects what happens next. Of course a particle can communicate with its future self.

The strangeness comes through in an experiment conceived by Robert Spekkens, a physicist who studies the foundations of quantum mechanics at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. Spekkens and his colleagues carried out the experiment in 2009. Alice prepares a photon in one of four possible ways. Classically, we could think of these four ways as two bits of information. Bob then measures the particle in one of two possible ways. If he chooses to measure the particle in the first way, he obtains Alice’s first bit of information; if he chooses the second, he obtains her second bit. (Technically, he does not get either bit with certainty, just with a high degree of probability.) The obvious explanation for this result would be if the photon stores both bits and releases one based on Bob’s choice. But if that were the case, you’d expect Bob to be able to obtain information about both bits — to measure both of them or at least some characteristic of both, such as whether they are the same or different. But he can’t. No experiment, even in principle, can get at both bits — a restriction known as the Holevo bound. “Quantum systems seem to have more memory, but you can’t actually access it,” said Costantino Budroni, a physicist at the University of Siegen in Germany.

The photon really does seem to hold just one bit, and it is as if Bob’s choice of measurement retroactively decides which it is. Perhaps that really is what happens, but this is tantamount to time travel — on an oddly limited basis, involving the ability to determine the nature of the bit but denying any glimpse of the future.

Wow, just wow.

Remember, these correlations are entangled in time. So what Alice does with her particle is correlated with Bob's choice in the future. You also have a case where Alice measures a single photon in one out of four possible ways. But it's Bob's choice in the future that decides which it is. Again, this is a single photon whose measurements IN TIME are entangled.

This is exactly what I'm saying. If this is setup on a quantum communication network, then entanglement occurs with future and past events in time.

I've always been under the impression it's impossible to exploit entanglement for sending meaningful information, and I highly doubt scientists have found a way around that, it's a fundamental law of reality which prevents sending useful information back in time. For the people saying instantaneous communication isn't equivalent to sending information back in time, well that's actually wrong for two important reasons. First all of general relativity says that if information could be sent faster than light, there would be frames of reference in which the information appears to travel backwards in time. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there are robust experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser which demonstrate that entanglement is able to form retrocausal links between particles, such that what one entangled particle does can depend on what happens to its partner at a future moment in time. These experiments also clearly demonstrate why it's impossible to exploit this effect for sending information back in time.

Experiments that involve entanglement exhibit phenomena that may make some people doubt their ordinary ideas about causal sequence. In the delayed choice quantum eraser, an interference pattern will form on D0 even if which-path data pertinent to photons that form it are only erased later in time than the signal photons hit that primary detector. Not only that feature of the experiment is puzzling; D0 can, in principle at least, be on one side of the universe, and the other four detectors can be "on the other side of the universe" to each other.[21]

However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have been detected and the experimenter has had information about them available, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.[21]

The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference (see Fig. 5), so it is not possible to deduce what will happen to the idler photons by observing the signal photons alone. The delayed choice quantum eraser does not communicate information in a retro-causal manner because it takes another signal, one which must arrive via a process that can go no faster than the speed of light, to sort the superimposed data in the signal photons into four streams that reflect the states of the idler photons at their four distinct detection screens.[note 2][note 3]

In fact, a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of relativistic quantum field theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects.[22]

Delayed choice quantum eraser

Here's a nice summary of why faster-than-light communication implies sending information back in time in terms of general relativity and why it would lead to paradoxes. The only way it wouldn't create paradoxes is if the many worlds interpretation is correct, because sending information back in time would simply create a new time line where they received information from the future. However it would be totally useless because the new time line would not be the one where the information was sent from, so the senders wouldn't even know it worked.

Consider a signal leaving point A and reaching point B at speed 'a'. An inertial observer in the frame of observation at rest with respect to points A and B observes the signal arriving at B after it leaves A. This defines our arrow of time, the direction from the past to the future.

Now, it can be shown that if a < c, for all inertial observers, A has to necessarily precede B. This is at the foundation of 'the principle of causality' (that the cause is known to precede the effect, and can influence the effect at a speed bound by the speed of light). However, if a > c, it can be shown that the total time taken to arrive at B is negative as measured by certain inertial observers traveling with respect to our setup, ie., for these observers, the signal would reach B before it left at A. Not all inertial observers see this direction reversal, and only those moving at certain specific velocities see this. Popularly known as the Tachyonic antitelephone, this thought experiment showed that faster than light travel implies a violation of causality and a reversal of time. So, you could use such a tachyon (faster-than-light particle) to signal back in time. However, it can be shown that tachyons cannot exist, by constructing two-way communication paradoxes similar in spirit to the Grandfather paradox.

Why would traveling faster than light make me go "back in time"?

a reply to: neoholographic

supposedly we might already have ftlc.

if you haven't read this before. it's a good one.


A Curiosity of Spirit (FULL DOCUMENT)

a reply to: neoholographic

You are missing the biggest point here. An excerpt from your article:

[Perhaps that really is what happens, but this is tantamount to time travel — on an oddly limited basis, involving the ability to determine the nature of the bit but denying any glimpse of the future.

So unless i misunderstand this, all Alice will know is that Bob has taken a measurement. It clearly states a denial of future knowledge clearly making intelligible communication impossible.

I agree, this is very interesting stuff, but you are making assumptions that simply are not there.

Great listen Me marry her have the first and get well you know .
ps the winning lotto numbers for may 12 1990 are 1- 6 -18 -36-45-46
HOlY wow a mansion what were marred? man your hot .
Yacht ? i OWN A Yacht?
No nothings wrong i must have had weird dreams i drempt i was poor and sent my self a messege back to now with winning lotto numbers

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: neoholographic

You are missing the biggest point here. An excerpt from your article:

[Perhaps that really is what happens, but this is tantamount to time travel — on an oddly limited basis, involving the ability to determine the nature of the bit but denying any glimpse of the future.

So unless i misunderstand this, all Alice will know is that Bob has taken a measurement. It clearly states a denial of future knowledge clearly making intelligible communication impossible.

I agree, this is very interesting stuff, but you are making assumptions that simply are not there.

Of course she's denied any glimpse of the future, she's not on a Quantum Communication Network. Just read the first thread in this post along with other threads and you will see instant communication and QCN's mentioned throughout.

The article is about entanglement in time not quantum communication networks. Entanglement in time supports exactly what I'm saying and refutes the notion that:

Nothing implies time-related anything.

As said by someone on this thread.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: neoholographic

supposedly we might already have ftlc.

if you haven't read this before. it's a good one.


A Curiosity of Spirit (FULL DOCUMENT)

Thanks for the link, I will check it out. I wouldn't be surprised either. The Government will use these networks before the public sees them just like with the internet.

originally posted by: TheBorg
a reply to: rickymouse

Which is why that theory cannot be correct. There's far too much room for misuse here.

TheBorg

What? The intent of use has nothing to do with validating the theory. The theory could be fact, and if it's fact, it can be used nefariously. To somehow jump to the conclusion that it can be used nefariously, and as such -- is not fact, is like -- the biggest leap in logic I've ever seen.

Misuse=/=Fiction.

a reply to: neoholographic

Well the implication here is that there was a ftlc device was on the rover.

And they were using it to censor images being sent back by the rovers communication array.

the question is why the need to censor images of mars....

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: neoholographic

You are missing the biggest point here. An excerpt from your article:

[Perhaps that really is what happens, but this is tantamount to time travel — on an oddly limited basis, involving the ability to determine the nature of the bit but denying any glimpse of the future.

So unless i misunderstand this, all Alice will know is that Bob has taken a measurement. It clearly states a denial of future knowledge clearly making intelligible communication impossible.

I agree, this is very interesting stuff, but you are making assumptions that simply are not there.

If the measurement is observable than you could send coded messages through binary. 1-0-1-0 totally a complete message. It's like a flashlight -- right. I can tell you an entire series of events just by turning it on/off.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: neoholographic

You are missing the biggest point here. An excerpt from your article:

[Perhaps that really is what happens, but this is tantamount to time travel — on an oddly limited basis, involving the ability to determine the nature of the bit but denying any glimpse of the future.

So unless i misunderstand this, all Alice will know is that Bob has taken a measurement. It clearly states a denial of future knowledge clearly making intelligible communication impossible.

I agree, this is very interesting stuff, but you are making assumptions that simply are not there.

If the measurement is observable than you could send coded messages through binary. 1-0-1-0 totally a complete message. It's like a flashlight -- right. I can tell you an entire series of events just by turning it on/off.

Have you ever heard that phrase: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Listen, nothing 'in the future' can become entangled with something from the past.

It creates paradox of the 'simultaneous' nature entangled objects display, as all future events are post 'simultaneous'.

a reply to: imjack

You keep repeating this nonsense without a shred of evidence to support what you're saying. You first said:

Nothing implies time-related anything.

Which was absolutely wrong and entanglement in time has been clearly demonstrated. You then said:

Listen, nothing 'in the future' can become entangled with something from the past.

Why should anybody in their right mind listen to anything you're saying when you are wrong when you said nothing implies time related anything and you don't provide any evidence to support anything that you say. Again, experiments with entanglement in time refute everything that you're saying.

In 2012, Jay Olson and Timothy Ralph, both physicists at the University of Queensland in Australia, laid out a procedure to encrypt data so that it can be decrypted only at a specific moment in the future. Their scheme exploits quantum entanglement, a phenomenon in which particles or points in a field, such as the electromagnetic field, shed their separate identities and assume a shared existence, their properties becoming correlated with one another’s. Normally physicists think of these correlations as spanning space, linking far-flung locations in a phenomenon that Albert Einstein famously described as “spooky action at a distance.” But a growing body of research is investigating how these correlations can span time as well. What happens now can be correlated with what happens later, in ways that elude a simple mechanistic explanation. In effect, you can have spooky action at a delay.

These correlations seriously mess with our intuitions about time and space. Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later. Each of these events is the cause of the other, as if each were the first to occur. (Even a single observer can encounter this causal ambiguity, so it’s distinct from the temporal reversals that can happen when two observers move at different velocities, as described in Einstein’s special theory of relativity.)

www.quantamagazine.org...

Again, you make these statements in a vacuum without any evidence to support what you're saying.

As KPB explained you need to understand that the observers perspective is always just a view subset.
The observed phenomena that appears to defy causality is actually a superposition of many subsets that probably do have some ultimate temporal ordering in their schema.
So you could make the case that quantum entanglement defines perspective.
Hilbert space, a sacred why, a mystery gaping inside.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: neoholographic

You are missing the biggest point here. An excerpt from your article:

[Perhaps that really is what happens, but this is tantamount to time travel — on an oddly limited basis, involving the ability to determine the nature of the bit but denying any glimpse of the future.

So unless i misunderstand this, all Alice will know is that Bob has taken a measurement. It clearly states a denial of future knowledge clearly making intelligible communication impossible.

I agree, this is very interesting stuff, but you are making assumptions that simply are not there.

If the measurement is observable than you could send coded messages through binary. 1-0-1-0 totally a complete message. It's like a flashlight -- right. I can tell you an entire series of events just by turning it on/off.

That's not how it works though.

When someone measures one of the pairs on earth, the corresponding particle on Mars will set to match the one on earth. However, since the measurement is random when taken, the observer in Mars will not know how to read the results, since 0 might really be 1.

We know that entanglement works, but since the communicators cannot specifically set one to '1', only measure and observe the results, binary cannot be used.

originally posted by: nightbringr
When someone measures one of the pairs on earth, the corresponding particle on Mars will set to match the one on earth. However, since the measurement is random when taken, the observer in Mars will not know how to read the results, since 0 might really be 1.

We know that entanglement works, but since the communicators cannot specifically set one to '1', only measure and observe the results, binary cannot be used.

What would happen if you had two communication devices, each one made up of a transmitter/receiver pair, one labelled 0 and the other labelled 1 and you sent a series of bits by alternating between the two devices?

Also could you not agree before hand that communicating via one machine would mean 'Abort the mission' say and via the other machine would mean 'Carry on with the mission'? Would that not mean that information had traveled instantly?

a reply to: MarrsAttax
How do you know what is communication and what not? All you see is a random stream of bits.

You have to compare your measurement result with the measurement of the other (entangled) side to see the correlation.

originally posted by: neoholographic
So a person on August 8th 2018 at 2:15 PM is at one point in space and the same person at June 12th 2017 at 4:30 PM is at another point in space. So instant communication is just communication between these 2 points in spacetime and there isn't any physical medium needed to transmit information between these two points so there isn't any violation of causality.

If you are here now, how can you be some other time?
You are always here now!!
You do not travel through time. Thoughts of other times appear now. Now is the only 'time' that you are.

The "spooky action at a distance" was just an Einstein troll.
All the quantum experiments I've seen could much more easily be explained as a secure synchronization.
Its like buying a key for a single use pay per view, the key expires after one viewing.
Remember the old Mission Impossible opening where the tape self destructs after the words "Your mission, should you choose to accept it"?
Superposition has been around for a long time "quantum superposition" requires special equipment that appears to create a paradox but really doesnt.

Here's more:

Phycisist Anton Zeilinger was asked this question.

2016 : WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT?

What was his answer?

Quantum Entanglement Is Independent Of Space And Time

The fact that you have quantum entanglement in space and time supports exactly what I'm saying. On a classical level, we're in Plato's Cave so to speak. We're trapped in a prison of space and time. On a quantum level, things like entanglement are free of space and time and can violate causality as wee see it freely.

In fact, spacetime seems to emerge from these correlations and there's growing evidence that the entropy of entanglement is tied to gravity. Here's more:

The point is that the predictions of quantum mechanics are independent of the relative arrangement in space and time of the individual measurements. Fully independent of their distance, independent of which is earlier or later etc. One has perfect correlations between all of an entangled system even as these correlations cannot be explained by properties carried by the system before measurement. So quantum mechanics transgresses space and time in a very deep sense. We would be well advised to reconsider the foundations of space and time in a conceptual way.

At first sight, this might not be surprising. After all, if I measure the heights of peaks of the mountains around me, it also does not matter in which sequence I do the measurements and whether I measure the more distant ones first or the ones closer to each other. The same is true for measurements on entangled quantum systems. However, the important point is that the first measurement on any system entangled with others instantly changes the common quantum state describing all, the subsequent measurement on the next does that again and so on. Until, in the end, all measurement results on all systems entangled with each other, are perfectly correlated.

It appears that an understanding is possible via the notion of information. Information seen as the possibility of obtaining knowledge. Then quantum entanglement describes a situation where information exists about possible correlations between possible future results of possible future measurements without any information existing for the individual measurements. The latter explains quantum randomness, the first quantum entanglement. And both have significant consequences for our customary notions of causality.

www.edge.org...

The other article I mentioned earlier called this supermemory.

So particles are not just entangled in space, say between New York and L.A. They're entangled in time. So past and future measurements are correlated. That's just a WOW moment and with a quantum communication network Alice from 2017 on this network can communicate with Alice in 2018 without violating causality on a classical level.

You simply have to break free of Plato's Cave and accept that what we call "reality" on a classical level is just an emergent property of quantum mechanics and possibly something much deeper. People have a desire to be comfortable in their beliefs. So they want to see the world as structured in the same way that they experience it but this is just not the case.