Quantum Entanglement - chatty or silent at FTL

[PB666]

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/03/hey-bill-nye-please-stop-talking.html

I have to disagree with this individual and agree in part (small) with Nye, I think you can get instantaneous communication, the problems are this

 

Particle A is split into Particles BC at which point they are entangled.
ParticleA (plural;A[]) is split into serially into particles BC and set into a linear array B[] and C[]
B[] and C[] are carried off into some far off part of the galaxy.
According to quantum entanglement if the series B[] is determined, then C[] is also known no matter the distance as soon as C is examined.
So the current studies I have seen is that B[] can be determined (resolved and semi-randomly forced - meaning that some of the time the observer can force the outcome of B, we will call this array B[~] therefore A[] -> A[x~] where x is the opposite of the state of B.

The problem then arises in the space-time relationship. If ship b and c travel to opposing ends of the galaxy their spacetime hypergeometry begins to start diverging (and not only this but we cannot see them and we cannot realize the differences in warping). We have tested relationships of a few kilometers, communication seems to work, but anything beyond that distance and entangled particles become unstable, they don't last. For the scheme above to work the particles are trapped in state of non-interaction, but the problem is that to accelerate, carried some place, and decelerate the particles are interacting and therefore one or the other will be resolved sooner or later.

The second problem is that for b to communicate with c is that b and c have to have a common ancestor and a shared devotee that protects their non-state. That means that communication requires a preparative process, but not only that, meaningful resolution may require some simultaneous observation. 

Suppose this scenario we fix these problems.

We send out a colonization ship that wakes in say 10000 years, far beyond rf range, and in that ship there is a box, and in the box there is a matrix of say 1000 B[] and in each B[] there are a million B

So then A knows when the ship arrives and settles, careful estimates of the space time geometry are assessed, the were probes sent from time to time from both parties to calibrate any unknown irregularities that have occurred.

B[]1 is configured and gets a 30% bias, which means each bit needs to be repeated 10 times, with a parity bit to check for errors, thats 90B per byte of information. So the first message can be 10,000bytes long. The last sentence in the array is how long until the next message is sent, its repeated several times so that any nonsense is weeded out.

A[]1 is then resolved and received. It now knows when to open A[]2. It also knows that if it wants to send a message back it has to before B[]2 is sent, because once B[]2 begins resolving its either set or not, As B[]2 is being programmed, the programmers realize it is set, so they read that message and then program B[]3 instead, and back and forth in this way communicating.

This is not a declaration that the problems of communication can be fixed, but if they are fixed, this is how quantum entangled communication might work.
In the same comoving reference frame resolving simultaneity is not that difficult because there is no relative vector differences, but once the comoving references start changing. If B and C need to be observed simultaneously for communication to work B being set and C being read, then communication is a highly improbable event as spacetime diverges. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by PB666

[KAL 9000]

I want to respond, and I know the concepts of entanglement, but I'm afraid I don't know all that jargon.

[mikegarrison]

Well I'm no expert on this, but everything I've ever heard is that it is impossible (in theory or practice) for any information to be send via quantum entanglement. The problematic part is where you claim that particle B can be "forced" to flip a particular way. If that's even possible, wouldn't it break the entanglement with C?

[PB666]

Im going to see if I can root up some of the recent studies that suggest that B can be biased on read. We can debate the studies. Will edit in a bit.

Quote

Nature. 2001 Apr 26;410(6832):1067-70. Entanglement purification for quantum communication.
Pan JW1, Simon C, Brukner C, Zeilinger A.
From Abstract: Existing general purification protocols are based on the quantum controlled-NOT (CNOT) or similar quantum logic operations, which are very difficult to implement experimentally. Present realizations of CNOT gates are much too imperfect to be useful for long-distance quantum communication. Here we present a scheme for the entanglement purification of general mixed entangled states, which achieves 50 per cent of the success probability of schemes based on the CNOT operation, but requires only simple linear optical elements. Because the perfection of such elements is very high, the local operations necessary for purification can be performed with the required precision. Our procedure is within the reach of current technology, and should significantly simplify the implementation of long-distance quantum communication.  11323664

Quote

Nature. 2003 Jan 23;421(6921):343-6. Experimental extraction of an entangled photon pair from two identically decohered pairs.
Yamamoto T1, Koashi M, Ozdemir SK, Imoto N.
From abstract.  Two polarization-entangled photon pairs are generated by spontaneous parametric down-conversion and then distributed through a channel that induces identical phase fluctuations to both pairs; this ensures that no entanglement is available as long as each pair is manipulated individually. Then, through collective local operations and classical communication we extract from the two decohered pairs a photon pair that is observed to be polarization-entangled. 12540894

This paper basically argues that the more you try to lower noise in you particle selection process, the more simultaneous your reading operations have to be. That would be problematic for galactic transcommunication schemes because of the time and space would require excessive screening and but the ability to read simultaneously becomes less and less probable with distance. This basically argues my point, that communication on very recent timeframes may be possible, but at very distant timeframes may be statistically impossible. Nye may be right in the concept but wrong in the actual practical application.

Quote

Phys Rev Lett. 2004 Jan 30;92(4):047904. Epub 2004 Jan 29. Long distance quantum teleportation in a quantum relay configuration.
de Riedmatten H1, Marcikic I, Tittel W, Zbinden H, Collins D, Gisin N.
A long distance quantum teleportation experiment with a fiber-delayed Bell state measurement (BSM) is reported. The source creating the qubits to be teleported and the source creating the necessary entangled state are connected to the beam splitter realizing the BSM by two 2 km long optical fibers. In addition, the teleported qubits are analyzed after 2.2 km of optical fiber, in another laboratory separated by 55 m. Time-bin qubits carried by photons at 1310 nm are teleported onto photons at 1550 nm. The fidelity is of 77%, above the maximal value obtainable without entanglement. This is the first realization of an elementary quantum relay over significant distances, which will allow an increase in the range of quantum communication and quantum key distribution. PMID: 14995410

 

Quote

Phys Rev Lett. 2006 Jun 30;96(25):250401. Limit on nonlocality in any world in which communication complexity is not trivial.
Brassard G1, Buhrman H, Linden N, Méthot AA, Tapp A, Unger F.
Bell proved that quantum entanglement enables two spacelike separated parties to exhibit classically impossible correlations. Even though these correlations are stronger than anything classically achievable, they cannot be harnessed to make instantaneous (faster than light) communication possible. Yet, Popescu and Rohrlich have shown that even stronger correlations can be defined, under which instantaneous communication remains impossible. This raises the question: Why are the correlations achievable by quantum mechanics not maximal among those that preserve causality? We give a partial answer to this question by showing that slightly stronger correlations would result in a world in which communication complexity becomes trivial. 16907289

Quote

Nature. 2008 Aug 14;454(7206):861-4. doi: 10.1038/nature07121. Testing the speed of 'spooky action at a distance'.
Salart D1, Baas A, Branciard C, Gisin N, Zbinden H.
Correlations are generally described by one of two mechanisms: either a first event influences a second one by sending information encoded in bosons or other physical carriers, or the correlated events have some common causes in their shared history. Quantum physics predicts an entirely different kind of cause for some correlations, named entanglement. This reveals itself in correlations that violate Bell inequalities (implying that they cannot be described by common causes) between space-like separated events (implying that they cannot be described by classical communication). Many Bell tests have been performed, and loopholes related to locality and detection have been closed in several independent experiments. It is still possible that a first event could influence a second, but the speed of this hypothetical influence (Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance') would need to be defined in some universal privileged reference frame and be greater than the speed of light. Here we put stringent experimental bounds on the speed of all such hypothetical influences. We performed a Bell test over more than 24 hours between two villages separated by 18 km and approximately east-west oriented, with the source located precisely in the middle. We continuously observed two-photon interferences well above the Bell inequality threshold. Taking advantage of the Earth's rotation, the configuration of our experiment allowed us to determine, for any hypothetically privileged frame, a lower bound for the speed of the influence. For example, if such a privileged reference frame exists and is such that the Earth's speed in this frame is less than 10(-3) times that of the speed of light, then the speed of the influence would have to exceed that of light by at least four orders of magnitude. 18704081

Quote

Science. 2012 Jul 6;337(6090):72-5. Heralded entanglement between widely separated atoms.
Hofmann J1, Krug M, Ortegel N, Gérard L, Weber M, Rosenfeld W, Weinfurter H.
Entanglement is the essential feature of quantum mechanics. Notably, observers of two or more entangled particles will find correlations in their measurement results that cannot be explained by classical statistics. To make it a useful resource, particularly for scalable long-distance quantum communication, the heralded generation of entanglement between distant massive quantum systems is necessary. We report on the creation and analysis of heralded entanglement between spins of two single rubidium-87 atoms trapped independently 20 meters apart. Our results illustrate the viability of an integral resource for quantum information science, as well as for fundamental tests of quantum mechanics.22767924

More later.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6986/20140324/scientists-demonstrate-three-way-quantum-communication-light-speed.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/physicists-break-quantum-teleportation-distance-record 100km.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1280

Here is an example of interference based forcing of quantum entanglement

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6201/1132.6.full

There are much better articles by I have to find them.

Quote

Phys Rev Lett. 2015 Dec 18;115(25). Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell's Theorem with Entangled Photons. Giustina. . . .Zeilinger A
Abstract: Local realism is the worldview in which physical properties of objects exist independently of measurement and where physical influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Bell's theorem states that this worldview is incompatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics, as is expressed in Bell's inequalities. Previous experiments convincingly supported the quantum predictions. Yet, every experiment requires assumptions that provide loopholes for a local realist explanation. Here, we report a Bell test that closes the most significant of these loopholes simultaneously. Using a well-optimized source of entangled photons, rapid setting generation, and highly efficient superconducting detectors, we observe a violation of a Bell inequality with high statistical significance. The purely statistical probability of our results to occur under local realism does not exceed 3.74E-31, corresponding to an 11.5 standard deviation effect.   26722905

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by PB666

[problemecium]

As far as I've been led to understand, the reason communication via entanglement is currently impracticable is because the particles don't spontaneously tell people on opposite ends what their states are.
So if I have particles A and B entangled, and I measure particle A, I immediately know the state of particle B. But the guy on the other end of the line doesn't know anything - particle B doesn't tell him anything, and he doesn't know that I observed particle A. He could measure particle B, but in so doing he would change its state and most likely break the entanglement - and also wouldn't be able to tell whether he was receiving information from A or generating it on his end and sending it. I could call him up and tell him what's what, and he would then agree, but that would provide plenty of time for light to catch up.
The seemingly obvious solution is for us both to measure at preset times, which we calculate in advance: I measure particle A at 5:00 and he checks B at 5:01. But wait! 5:01 for him is entirely liable to be before 5:00 for me! We can do all the math we want, but at large spacelike distances, the order of events is dependent on who's observing. Someone could easily drive by in a spaceship and prove that particle B was measured first. Therefore, were either of us to receive messages at all, they would arrive at unpredictable points in time - possibly years before or after they're relevant.

[PB666]

16 hours ago, parameciumkid said:

As far as I've been led to understand, the reason communication via entanglement is currently impracticable is because the particles don't spontaneously tell people on opposite ends what their states are.
So if I have particles A and B entangled, and I measure particle A, I immediately know the state of particle B. But the guy on the other end of the line doesn't know anything - particle B doesn't tell him anything, and he doesn't know that I observed particle A. He could measure particle B, but in so doing he would change its state and most likely break the entanglement - and also wouldn't be able to tell whether he was receiving information from A or generating it on his end and sending it. I could call him up and tell him what's what, and he would then agree, but that would provide plenty of time for light to catch up.
The seemingly obvious solution is for us both to measure at preset times, which we calculate in advance: I measure particle A at 5:00 and he checks B at 5:01. But wait! 5:01 for him is entirely liable to be before 5:00 for me! We can do all the math we want, but at large spacelike distances, the order of events is dependent on who's observing. Someone could easily drive by in a spaceship and prove that particle B was measured first. Therefore, were either of us to receive messages at all, they would arrive at unpredictable points in time - possibly years before or after they're relevant.

Yes but there are apparently third party ways of determinism, that means that if particle A can be determine then when B reads the determinism of creates the anticorrelation B. Again, I have seen two papers on this in the last 3 years but I have to find them. The order problem is a problem, but one of the abstract mentions that quantum entanglement at great distances is problematic, this is because the interference that space-time creates, notably all the other events going on in spacetime. The nonlocality problem loopholes have basically been a fight to extend the entangled distances to the point that decision making on one side does not affect the other sides registration. 

What you are refering to is the loopholes, because early experiments had particle measurements going on at very short periods after entangled particles are generated, now they are registering them at great distances, IIRC in the canaries or meridian islands they sent photons between islands so that there were completely different sets of instruments. I have to find the paper but I believed they used third party particles to communicate. Altering the photo without destroying.

Quote

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Nov 17;112(46) Teleportation of entanglement over 143 km. Herbst T, Scheidl T, Fink M, Handsteiner J, Wittmann B, Ursin R, Zeilinger A.
From Abstract:  . . . .We obtained an expectation value for the entanglement-witness operator, more than 6 SDs beyond the classical limit. By consecutive generation of the two required photon pairs and space-like separation of the relevant measurement events, we also showed the feasibility of the swapping protocol in a long-distance scenario, where the independence of the nodes is highly demanded. Because our results already allow for efficient implementation of entanglement purification, we anticipate our research to lay the ground for a fully fledged quantum repeater over a realistic high-loss and even turbulent quantum channel.     26578764

Nature. 2012 Sep 13;489(7415):269-73. Quantum teleportation over 143 kilometres using active feed-forward.
Ma XS1, Herbst T, Scheidl T, Wang D, Kropatschek S, Naylor W, Wittmann B, Mech A, Kofler J, Anisimova E, Makarov V, Jennewein T, Ursin R, Zeilinger A.
From Abstract:  . . . . Here we report such an experiment, using active feed-forward in real time. The experiment uses two free-space optical links, quantum and classical, over 143 kilometres between the two Canary Islands of La Palma and Tenerife. To achieve this, we combine advanced techniques involving a frequency-uncorrelated polarization-entangled photon pair source, ultra-low-noise single-photon detectors and entanglement-assisted clock synchronization. The average teleported state fidelity is well beyond the classical limit of two-thirds. Furthermore, we confirm the quality of the quantum teleportation procedure without feed-forward by complete quantum process tomography. Our experiment verifies the maturity and applicability of such technologies in real-world scenarios, in particular for future satellite-based quantum teleportation.PMID: 22951967

 

This is one of the papers. The boundaries of FTL may be questionable in this case, again in quantum length scale these are tremendous differences, but I think the appropriate measure would be a natural log scale that would determine the rarity of finding (selecting particles) capable of maintaining pure entanglement at these distances. At least there is the plausibility that you could engage in FTL with appropriate selection and a repeater but the difficulty would be scalar with the log of distance (and the probability that some other interaction or interference occurs). I read this paper now and I am less certain of FTL communication. What the really need to do is this experiment once they have a measurement device on two spots on the moon and they can transmit from the ISS.

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by PB666

[PB666]

http://www.sciencealert.com/news/20142209-26214-2.html

I'm not going to say anything about this, but if you read the article you will quickly see the contradition with the no-comm hypothesis.

Unfortunately I wont have access to the article for another full year. Abstract is not available online either.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/udg-fli091814.php

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by PB666

[sevenperforce]

"Classic" quantum entangled particles cannot be used for superluminal communication. Full stop. The characteristics which make them entangled ensure that there is no solution to the particle statistics that allows superluminal communication.

However, if it is determined that the entanglement itself is carried by a faster-than-light particle with a non-zero energy, then it is possible that such particles could be used for FTL communication outside the realm of classic quantum entanglement.

The reason I say nonzero energy is that a particle traveling faster than c actually has its greatest energy closest to c. Infinite speed corresponds to zero energy, which means it doesn't exist at all, and the mechanics of entanglement are not even analogous to those of gauge bosons. So you want a FTL particle with a non-infinite speed in order to have any hope of FTL communication.

[PB666]

Yes but we are talking about quantum wormholes. I'm just reporting on a trend in the literature, this particular article which I don't have access to is the furthest advanced. It basically says the information in a photon that strikes an entangled pair single lends its information to the other single that is 25km away.

[K^2]

You cannot communicate via entanglement. If you are ever stuck with a thought experiment involving entanglement, switch to Many Worlds Interpretation. You are guaranteed to get the same result as any other flavor of QM, at least, as far as observable data is concerned, but entanglement is entirely intuitive in MWI. Measurement by Bob of particle B puts Bob into superposition of Bob+ and Bob-. If he later meets Charlie who made measurements on C, Bob+ will be talking to Charlie- and Bob- to Charlie+. Naturally, they'll conclude that their experiments are correlated. How can they not be? Putting entanglement into that frame of mind also makes it obvious why you can never use it for communication, but why you can sometimes use it to enhance communication. Various quantum encryption and teleportation schemes are examples.

[PB666]

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

You cannot communicate via entanglement. If you are ever stuck with a thought experiment involving entanglement, switch to Many Worlds Interpretation. You are guaranteed to get the same result as any other flavor of QM, at least, as far as observable data is concerned, but entanglement is entirely intuitive in MWI. Measurement by Bob of particle B puts Bob into superposition of Bob+ and Bob-. If he later meets Charlie who made measurements on C, Bob+ will be talking to Charlie- and Bob- to Charlie+. Naturally, they'll conclude that their experiments are correlated. How can they not be? Putting entanglement into that frame of mind also makes it obvious why you can never use it for communication, but why you can sometimes use it to enhance communication. Various quantum encryption and teleportation schemes are examples.

Theory and observation are two different things, I have to read their paper, unless you have a copy and paste some of the results here, then it will be next year. I know the theory, I've written here on the restriction, but the article says that photon X which is deterministic slams into Y2 and Xs information shows up in Y1, now I know how media hype leaves out important details.

This particular hype is making the claim the Angie+ greets Bob and he becomes Bob-, it may be the case that Bob+ is ignored, in which case Angie+Bob- is selective, in which case Bob+ will only be observed when AngieBob are detected, but in that case they did not say this. The issue here is whether bob is predetermine or indeterminate until biased observation.

Couple of other things that were not stated

1. They did not give time stamp information.
2. They did not inform whether the crystal block was the source of the photon or trapped the photon from a different source.
3. Was X deterministic or was XY2 deterministic in which case it was not communication.

The devil here is in the details. But it appears that the state of technology is very close. One of the papers mentioned that they cant get around closed time-like curve limitations by making certain that the loops never close back on one the space-time cone.

This thread begins with a question mark, unusual claims need unusual levels of support.

 

[qeveren]

I'm pretty sure that, when you have a pair of particles that are entangled in some property, measuring that property will give you a random result of its state.  Obviously, being correlated, the particle at the other end will show the opposite state when measured.  I'm not sure how one is supposed to send a message using correlated random results...

[PB666]

In theory the states should be predetermine. What the media release says, a photon is carrying information, it interaction in an optical fiber 25km from a crystal and the information is then conveyed to a crystal where the second photon of a pair resides. We are seeing article after article demonstrating variations of this idea.

[PB666]

http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-mixed-matter-and-light-at-room-temperature-for-the-first-time

OK, what is the purpose here, lets say quantum entanglement is chatty, forget about bell's theory (and I mean just ignore it K2, KSK, etc for the moment)

If you wanted to communicate over huge space-time separations the problem is that from either perspective, the sender or receiver light can only travel at c.
So now you have a FTL communication device, problem is as you separate there is a chance that photons can get disentangled by interactions with matter (decoherence).
Its a big problem because static storage of photons is basically nanosecond capability.

How two ships leave a common point, they can only travel away from each other at the speed of light, no faster, they would have to accelerate and decelerate even if they could achieve c.

So practically speaking a round trip communication between alpha-Centauri is around 8 years and of course the signal issues persist. But whatever savings I get at 0.2c from time dilation, trivial compared to time waiting for the message to be sent back once I get there.

'Look at these great pics' and get back 'looks great' would have entangled photons aging for years, decoherence would take its toll and no message would be received. So that even if Bell's theorem is incorrect, it still would not work, because there is simply no way to keep static coherent quantum states for that long. Light maintains quantum states for one simple reason, it travels at the speed of light and as long as it does not interact with certain non-vacuum states it maintains its coherence because light does not age. 

But lets say we could entangle photons and a place them in a static padded cell, something that keeps them from undergoing decoherence.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So lets flip this around and make the argument. If you had a padded cell and you could demonstrate the coherence is preserved between two photons trapped in two padded cells then. ...

You could entangle photons take them some reasonable space-time separation away from each other, and try to alter the state of one photon with another photons light which is in a predetermined state.
If QE is at all chatty, the state of the second photon should appear to be opposite of the state that was transformed.

 

 

[justidutch]

I do wonder if the photons trapped in padded cells are wearing straightjackets.

 

badum-tish!  Sorry, it's a Friday!

[PB666]

48 minutes ago, justidutch said:

I do wonder if the photons trapped in padded cells are wearing straightjackets.

 

badum-tish!  Sorry, it's a Friday!

Of course and a muzzle. 

[rtxoff]

Lets assume for a moment and you are right with your statement in your first post "I think you can get instantaneous communication"

What exactly does that mean instantaneous? Please specify in an example like this. We sent a spaceship out there to Alpha Centauri and we have a communication with them instantaneous. Which consequences follow out of this regarding causality?

[PB666]

4 minutes ago, gpisic said:

Lets assume for a moment and you are right with your statement in your first post "I think you can get instantaneous communication"

What exactly does that mean instantaneous? Please specify in an example like this. We sent a spaceship out there to Alpha Centauri and we have a communication with them instantaneous. Which consequences follow out of this regarding causality?

Heh-heh, but of course you are, all communication would have to be preplanned, again the is no certainty that it will work. 

[RenegadeRad]

Will there be wifi?

[PB666]

Be lucky if there is morse code.

[p1t1o]

14 minutes ago, gpisic said:

Lets assume for a moment and you are right with your statement in your first post "I think you can get instantaneous communication"

What exactly does that mean instantaneous? Please specify in an example like this. We sent a spaceship out there to Alpha Centauri and we have a communication with them instantaneous. Which consequences follow out of this regarding causality?

If you think about it classically, then instantaneous communication doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

But some theories of "quantum stuff" indicate that using entanglement in this way would imply that your message would travel backwards through time, with obvious implications for causality. I *think* that this would mean that FTL comms would be impossible, and not that violating causality is possible. It is very hard to imagine a universe where violation of causality is allowed.

 

 

 

[Waxing_Kibbous]

47 minutes ago, RenegadeRad said:

Will there be wifi?

Sure, break down any network communication to it's smallest part and its just 2 things, 1 and 0. You would just need 2 variables to make it work in another system.

[PB666]

10 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

If you think about it classically, then instantaneous communication doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

But some theories of "quantum stuff" indicate that using entanglement in this way would imply that your message would travel backwards through time, with obvious implications for causality. I *think* that this would mean that FTL comms would be impossible, and not that violating causality is possible. It is very hard to imagine a universe where violation of causality is allowed.

It is possible if time like curves never circle back on themselves. Think about it, case 1 I want to communicate with you, I set the state, you then read at some previous point in time, but if you read at some previous point in time, you would have set the state. So either the states are predetermined and neither can set the state, or the time-like curves can never circle back on themselves.

Quote

Bell summarized one of the least popular ways to address the theorem, superdeterminism, in a 1985 BBC Radio interview:

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.^{[5] Wikipedia Bell's theorem}

Again, I put this to a vote a while back and no-one chose deterministic universe.

Quote

The basic assumption entering into the theorem is that a quantum-mechanical system is prepared in an initial state, and that this initial state is describable as a mixed or pure state in a Hilbert space H. The system then evolves over time in such a way that there are two spatially distinct parts, A and B, sent to two distinct observers, Alice and Bob, who are free to perform quantum mechanical measurements on their portion of the total system (viz, A and B). The question is: is there any action that Alice can perform that would be detectable by Bob? The theorem replies 'no'.

An important assumption going into the theorem is that neither Alice nor Bob is allowed, in any way, to affect the preparation of the initial state. If Alice were allowed to take part in the preparation of the initial state, it would be trivially easy for her to encode a message into it; thus neither Alice nor Bob participates in the preparation of the initial state. The theorem does not require that the initial state be somehow 'random' or 'balanced' or 'uniform': indeed, a third party preparing the initial state could easily encode messages in it, received by Alice and Bob. Simply, the theorem states that, given some initial state, prepared in some way, there is no action that Alice can take that would be detectable by Bob.- Wikipedia no communication rule.

Would some of you like to rethink your ideals of the universe? This view is deterministic, in other words the semi-state that Bob reads or Alice reads is determined by the QM event that created the pair, and thus Einsteins spooky action at a distance is a fallacy.

At fine inspection there are all kinds of problems in the standard model based on QM, not saying anything new, all the connotations have yet to be resolved, that is why people are studying quantum entanglement of particles and states.

This is my view.

Quote

Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics.
Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that

(a) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and conversely

(b) the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.

Albert Einstein may have been the first person to carefully point out the radical effect the new quantum physics would have on our notion of physical state.^[1]

Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.

Indeterminacy in measurement was not an innovation of quantum mechanics, since it had been established early on by experimentalists that errors in measurement may lead to indeterminate outcomes. However, by the later half of the eighteenth century, measurement errors were well understood and it was known that they could either be reduced by better equipment or accounted for by statistical error models. In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.

 

[p1t1o]

5 minutes ago, PB666 said:

It is possible if time like curves never circle back on themselves. Think about it, case 1 I want to communicate with you, I set the state, you then read at some previous point in time, but if you read at some previous point in time, you would have set the state. So either the states are predetermined and neither can set the state, or the time-like curves can never circle back on themselves.

It all depends on which theories pan out, some rule out FTL comms, some apparently don't, we just don't know what the truth of the matter is yet.

I have a "gut feeling" which is pretty strong, but when it comes to quantum stuff, common sense, intuition and stuff that just "seems right" can go right out the window.

[PB666]

Just now, p1t1o said:

It all depends on which theories pan out, some rule out FTL comms, some apparently don't, we just don't know what the truth of the matter is yet.

I have a "gut feeling" which is pretty strong, but when it comes to quantum stuff, common sense, intuition and stuff that just "seems right" can go right out the window.

Science is about questions not answers. In the incompleteness of answers paradoxes arise, its sometimes a good idea to be the devil's advocate in order to force the more likely theory to come up with irrefutable proof and to close up on its holes. Intuitively I think that the quantum state is determined at its formation or pairs (deterministic) but then I also believe the universe is fundementally non-deterministic, consequently either one or the other is wrong. My belief in a probability distribution on the set of outcomes at the quantum level supersedes my belief in bell's inequity. The reason for this that even on the large scale such distributions are rather characteristic of our world. However determinism may only exist at some unknown boundary at some rational translation of quantum space-time, the problem is that we have no measures of quantum space-time, we have no verification, it is also a question.

We perceive the quantum mechanical world to be different from our own. For example, it is not possible in the classical world to go back in time or for a particle to be in two places at once, or for superposition of particles. But then if we try to rationalize statistics based upon distribution we frequently find that are rationalization of the distribution is imperfect (Black-swan theories). With a classical view we tend to see the center of the distribution not the distribution itself, we tend to calculate the distribution based on observations of the center and the areas of maximum likelihood, which in the rest of science has generally produced errors and exceptions.