BS: Quantum entanglement

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:29 PM

right or wrong posts aside I think everyone should be encouraged to write their own cosmology very much like personal poetry. How one expresses their place in a universe can teach one about themselves and others. Since we are rarely right about the unknown, the freedom to change our mind as we grow, reflects on what we think about who we are and where we are going.

Comparing the cosmology of a person every 7 years would be eye opening literature.
.............

Simple questions are often the most profound and rewarding.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 03:53 AM

Not wrong, just two different solutions for the nature of the universe. Observations (initially by Hubble) indicated an expanding universe, which was consistent with Einstein's first solution (the static solution was later). The situation now is known to be more complicated. That doesn't mean Einstein was wrong, indeed he was right because his equations can be used to describe a universe dominated by dark energy, which wasn't really thought to exist until the 1990s.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 03:38 AM

Einstein wrote and re-wrote the equations to encompass a static Universe then an expanding one.

Now - call me confused but one of the above (at least) must have been wrong. Call me hubristic, Mr pot/kettle, but logic I claim.

or are we going to posit: two opposing views is (sic) definitely quatum par excellence?

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 11:51 AM

I'll gob smack you back. I don't think anyone said 'wrong'.

If there is one thing some folks here probably got right is the fact General Relativity doesn't tell the entire or unified story.

There is a reason why Quantum theory works perfectly as a separate Planck scale 'empire'. I am willing to be wrong about this but I believe it is due to field energy dimensions that are yet undiscovered.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 04:22 AM

People commenting on where Einstein got it wrong. The hubris of some folk is gob-smacking.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 09:43 PM

Own it.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 04:07 PM

Rap I found a new book on communications
Come muni cations
this ones for you

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 02:41 PM

The strange quantum randomness of plank scale phenomena in quantum physics irked Einstein to the point he said as you know "god does not play dice with the universe." He preferred discrete beautiful answers which is why he argued against most things quantum.
He eventually accepted some truths about the spooky nature of reality but felt there must be a third thing to reestablish a rational wholeness to Physics. were still looking and guessing

I do not see the answer in gravity but in opposing space time energies we can't see or measure yet. I suspect they don't scale evenly and are out of balance, otherwise space might be slowing down instead of speeding up.

While Black holes are a form of ultimate matter they may hold a way to explore and measure new properties of space. New to us that is.

Just last year it was not proven that a thousand times more black holes exist. Now we know they are extremely plentiful. This plays a role in my thinking and is encouraging. (in other words, I told you so)

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 01:44 PM

Einstein's biggest mistakes came from people he trusted. He got talked into a few premises that do not reflect the universe we see today.
In fact 'mistakes' is the wrong word. He worked correctly in the mind set of his day as well as his own revelations which came from relatively simple super questions.

Assumptions he borrowed from his day include;
A static universe, no cosmological constant to account for expansion of space, no opposing dimensions of space time...


Rap that's new to me. I suppose I have my own neurological social communications theory. I'll take a look at the disciple and see if I can understand anything. I didn't click with game theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 10:50 AM

Einstein called it "spooky action" as a way of emphasising that he just didn't believe in it.

Who could blame him?
It does not detract from his genius one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 09:30 PM

No, I'm serious. ANY communications system has to be able to deal with those models, either pro or con. Especially con. If they are wrong, toss 'em out. Won't be the first time. (I know something of communications theory. Really.)

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 02:29 PM

Einstein called it "spooky action" as a way of emphasising that he just didn't believe in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 02:17 PM

"IT COULD WORK!"
Gene Wilder

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 01:52 PM

"so our fundamental understanding of Physics would be wrong."

ahh.. that's good..
so now I can tell my mum there was no need to be so upset and annoyed when I didn't bother revising because I wanted to be a rock star,
and failed physics O level in 1975...

..in fact.. come to think of it... my clueless wrong answers may now be the right ones.... 😎

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 09:29 AM

Right Keith and Stu, this is mostly a question of what we mean by information. The No-communication theorem states that it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. So although information can be transmitted between entangled particles instantly, not between observers.

But this is seriously complex stuff, and even Einstein and his peers didn't agree on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 05:41 AM

A decade ago some German scientists displayed their setup of a FTL teleportation of information. The information was a high quality recording of Beethoven's 5th, For effect they placed a lead barrier for the information to tunnel through. Out the other end came the music which sounded like a tinny degraded version from an old transistor radio. Most of the information changed to random states that did not exist in the original transmission. But you could still hear the famous da da da dah. It reminded me of the first recording of "Watson come here".

Rap, the implications of the Gerber's model involves the high ion count it produces in strained peas and if they present any health risks to infants?

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 05:39 AM

Dave,
you cannot transfer information faster than the speed of light by any means... known to us at the moment

Wrong Dave. Quantum entanglement does allow instantaneous transfer of information.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 05:27 AM

When I finally understand this, I will know if I believe it or don't believe it.

Cats know!

BTW entanglement can be lost, there is a statistical probability of some pairs dis-entagling. Even after: vibration, temperature, mag/electro fields have been controlled. All comms has to have error correcting codes, therefore.

When I lived in Malvern I once asked John Rarity (an world expert on the subject) about it. His comment was quite succinct. "It's complicated".

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Stu
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 05:24 AM

"Donuel, just hang on a minute, you cannot transfer information faster than the speed of light by any means, and this means is no exception."

That's precisely what quantum entanglement does; there is zero measurable delay in the transfer of information. It's the key point of the experiment.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 12:20 AM

FTL reflection between two measly photons is definitely FTL transmission of information, but it is a piss-poor substitute for a full fledged mass-transmission deck such as seen on Star Trek. But on Star Trek they know ALL about protons, tachyons, subspace distortions, temporal field emission, quark displacement and all sorts of other cool stuff. That's why tricorders work so well! :D

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:16 PM

I thought of Star Trek too, when I read about this! Oh, and Rapparee? Um, no. Ha ha ha.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:27 PM

Please discuss the implications of the Shannon-Weaver Model, Dance's Helical Model, and Gerbner's Model for quantum entanglement communications.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 06:46 PM

long story short, today this ftl means of communication renders the message scrambled. We need to learn how to clean it up. That requires a new understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 05:37 PM

Au contraire mon frère

Instant means instant. That's partly why Einstein called it spooky action at a distant. Distance is entirely irrelevant with this phenomena.

Imagine a dimension that connects all points at once because a distance vector does not exist. In that through the looking glass reality the concept of instant can exist.

If you believe you can picture thought experiments in your head I would be glad to speak to you on this level.
If you believe nothing of value can come from this, there is nothing to explore with me.

To go a surprising step further, if the receiver particle were to travel at relativistic speed toward the base particle or away from the base, the message will either be received from the future or from the past. Brian Greene taught me how this works and I can teach others the same way. It still amazes me. Do you deny this too?

FTL communication problem needs to solve a very tricky thing
The trick is to not collapse the wave function or change polarity with a detector. - do not attempt to measure the message -
Neat trick if we an solve it.

Standard Intro

The basic scenario most people learn for entanglement-based communication looks like this: two people, traditionally named "Alice" and "Bob" share a pair of particles that can each be measured in one of two quantum states, which we'll call "0" and "1." These particles are prepared in an entangled state in which a measurement of the state of Alice's particle is correlated with the measured state of Bob's particle, no matter how far apart they are. That is, if Alice measures her particle in state 1 at precisely noon in Schenectady, she knows that Bob in Portland will also measure his particle to be in state 1, whether he's in Portland, Maine, Portland, Oregon, or Portland Station on one of the moons of Akenaten.

This seems like a perfect mechanism for sending information over vast distances, as Ethan notes:

So now to the question: could we use this property — quantum entanglement — to communicate from a distant star system to our own? The answer to that is yes, if you consider making a measurement at a distant location a form of communication. But when you say communicate, typically you want to know something about your destination. You could, for example, keep an entangled particle in an indeterminate state, send it aboard a spacecraft bound for the nearest star, and tell it to look for signs of a rocky planet in that star's habitable zone. If you see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the +1 state, and if you don't see one, make a measurement that forces the particle you have to be in the -1 state.

This seems like a really obvious application, and in fact a bunch of people seized on this as a justification for ESP and various other schemes-- I recommend David Kaiser's How the Hippies Saved Physics for the fascinating history of this whole business. And, in fact, if the situation described above were possible-- if you could measure a particle's state in a way that forced a particular outcome-- you could absolutely send information this way. But you can't do that.

It's a brilliant plan, but there's a problem: entanglement only works if you ask a particle, "what state are you in?" If you force an entangled particle into a particular state, you break the entanglement, and the measurement you make on Earth is completely independent of the measurement at the distant star. If you had simply measured the distant particle to be +1 or -1, then your measurement, here on Earth, of either -1 or +1 (respectively) would give you information about the particle located light years away. But by forcing that distant particle to be +1 or -1, that means, no matter the outcome, your particle here on Earth has a 50/50 shot of being +1 or -1, with no bearing on the particle so many light years distant.

There's a subtle shift here from the impossible operation that would allow FTL communication to a different sort of operation, and it deserves to be spelled out. That is, in the original statement, you "make a measurement that forces the particle" to be in a particular state, while in the second you "force an entangled particle into a particular state" which breaks the entanglement. Those are not the same thing, though-- one is a measurement, the other is a change of state followed by a measurement.

It helps to think about a concrete implementation of this to make the distinction clear. So, imagine Alice's particle is one of the trapped ions that people regularly use to do quantum information experiments, which can be in one of two internal states. If her particle starts in a superposition of equal parts "0" and "1," how would she go about forcing a definite measurement outcome, let's say "1"?

The answer is to do an operation that we would describe in words as "If you're in state 0, flip the state, otherwise leave it alone." For a trapped-ion system, this is done using lasers to drive a transition from state 0 to state 1 by way of a third state (the jargon term for this is a "Raman transition"). If you choose your states carefully, you can arrange it so that an atom in state 0 will absorb the laser and flip its state, but an atom in state 1 won't interact with the laser at all. This sort of selective absorption is how they distinguish between states 0 and 1 in real trapped-ion experiments (state 0 absorbs a laser photon then re-emits the light, and repeating this a few million times a second gives you a bright spot on a camera pointed at the trap holding the ion), and a two-particle variant of it is how you entangle ions in the first place (the operation is "If Ion A is in state 1, flip the state of Ion B," and you give it an input state where B is definitely in state 0 and A is in a superposition of 0 and 1).

I do not know how to make a quantum detector or state changer that will always give me the original message. Do you have any ideas

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 05:36 PM

so our fundamental understanding of Physics would be wrong.

We have got things wrong before.

Superseded scientific theories

We will get things wrong again. It is pure arrogance to think we now know everything and counter productive to learning anything new. BTW - Talking of relativity, even Einstein got some things wrong!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 05:09 PM

Well DtG, if you do come up with a mechanism, you falsify special relativity, so our fundamental understanding of Physics would be wrong. Its not simply an engineering issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 02:58 PM

you cannot transfer information faster than the speed of light by any means... known to us at the moment

At one time they thought traveling at 30mph would suffocate you :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 02:03 PM

Donuel, just hang on a minute, you cannot transfer information faster than the speed of light by any means, and this means is no exception. The real application of this breakthrough is not speed, but security.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:03 AM

The most radical theory regarding entangled particles I know involves black holes which surprisingly behave like a fundamental particles in many ways including the possibility it can become entangled with another black hole.

They need not be connected by wormholes but simply by a dimension of space that I have always called anti space that has a condition of 'touching' all positions of space simultaneously.

btw
My prediction that the estimation of the number of black holes in our universe was far too low by an enormous factor. Its thousands of times more. It is being proven now via observation evidence.

Are you thinking blind squirrel? Its OK. No one can share your sight exactly unless it is in a common language like math.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 10:10 AM

I have seen how fiber optic cable signals are sorted out and could be applied to how multi-quantum entangled instant communication signals can be simultaneously decoded. It will take milliseconds which makes it technically not instant anymore


When I presented this idea of Instant Communication Entangled Signals as ICES, people looked at me like I was a terrorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:52 AM

Rap you are a lovable ol' coot. What Arthur c Clark did for Earth satellite communication, a new inventor will exceed him if he or she could find a way to scale up entangled communication from a single telegraph like tapping to a data stream of millions of signals.

We can entangle millions of atoms together. The trick will be to organize them.

We can make do without it but improvements are the name of the game.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:40 AM

Not at all. There is still "speed" although it is less than 1% of c.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:28 AM

The particle would have to be suspended in an insulated magnetic bottle.


movie idea
Wouldn't it be great if we found one of those in the pyramid, Machu Pichu or the ark of the covenant that was still broadcasting. The binary language would have to be deciphered but those who seeded the particle bottles were still waiting for a signal.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:13 AM

This is why SETI is wasting their time. Why communicate at the 'slow' speed of light when you can communicate instantly.

It works by having one or many of the entangled particles at a base station that can have their polarity changed by a stimulus which instantly changes the associated entangled particle's polarity where ever you have put it, be it on Mars or in the Oort cloud. We do not have the ability to put the receiver particles in another galaxy except to transport it near the sped of 'slow' light. But once it is there the language would be instant binary code.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Stu
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:05 AM

Utterly brilliant. Quantum entanglement is quite fantastic and boggling. I'd love to know what Albert would have thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:04 AM

What has been sent is information, between two particles some distance apart. Not objects themselves, even photons. If you do something to one particle, the same happens to its partner. What the Chinese groups have shown is that these particles can be further apart than had previously been demonstrated.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-transmit-earth-to-space-quantum-entanglement.html

Subject: BS: Quantum entanglement
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 08:31 AM

No, it isn't something that happens on the BS arguments on here :-)

Is Star Trek here at last?

First object teleported to Earth's orbit

Absolutley amazing.

DtG