Quantum Entanglement - chatty or silent at FTL

[Green Baron]

On 26.6.2016 at 7:46 AM, K^2 said:

The only further thing I can recommend you is stop reading Wikipedia and popular science literature. You are not going to learn anything about QM that way. Not without learning the basics. Open up any half-decent text-book on QM and learn how the measurements are actually performed. Look up EPR experiment, for example, and learn enough QM to be able to write out the Hamiltonian for it. It clearly demonstrates how the measurements actually transforms the system, and how collapse plays absolutely no part in it until you throw in an attempt to interpret the observations. CI and MWI are not features of the theory. They are tools for understanding how quantum systems correlate with observations we are making.

THIS ! And it's not limited to QM, it is so damn true for many other complex subjects.

 

[PB666]

They have their reasons for not crediting it, I'm not crediting thier opinion. Hawkings had his chance to set his meaning anyway he wanted to and he chose to present the common MWI and that is that. K2 can have his own special MWI that only he uses and not sure what that means either. 

The planet vulcan is a convinient way to explain how the orbit of  Mercury works, it simply does not exist. Convinient or not it leads science down the wrong path. CI may or may not allow FTL, it probably does not. 

Lets set FTL question separately and quantum entanglement separately from the interpretation issue, joining them together has created here the battle of egos. I favor CI, will continue to favor it like many scientist until better experiments are done, thats that. If Hawkings cant convince me then I doubt any other blankity-blank-blank will. 

[p1t1o]

It seems to me that if one is going to disagree with Stephen Hawking, one needs to do it with a rather large pile of maths attached.

[rtxoff]

Well it hurts me to say it (and it will hurt some other also here) but math alone won't give us all the answers that we seek.

[Green Baron]

I'm far from understanding the math behind QM and probably will never do so. But discussing communication faster than light to me is like discussing whether we can "lift" ants to an intellectual level: nonsense. Or to put it less offensive and in K²'s words: lack of understanding of the underlying principles. It's the same with subjects like evolution.

Too much fantasy is sold as science, until someone comes up with *reasonable* papers (i'd prefer papers that have been reviewed, not necessarily science and nature) all that ftl thing remains just fantasy.

5 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

It seems to me that if one is going to disagree with Stephen Hawking, one needs to do it with a rather large pile of maths attached.

A TV-show might suffice ....

[rtxoff]

Quote

David Bohm, dissatisfied with the prevailing orthodoxy, rediscovered de Broglie's pilot wave theory in 1952. Bohm's suggestions were not widely received then, partly due to reasons unrelated to their content, connected to Bohm's youthful communist affiliations.

Don't let the acceptance of scientific theories be guided by social aspects.

[PB666]

I have to put this little wrench in the machine the double slit experiment, light has no mass, it does not age, in this aspect a quantum spacetime and light are the same, therefore time has no meaning in the resoluion of the where the photon will appear. Because from lights point of view it may have never left the undefinable of quantum spacetime that it arose, but we know nothing of quantum spacetime. 

if you can imagine a photon pair they split and travel and eventual convert, the pair potentially could be joined in the timeless unit. My point is that we continually talk about physics like it is a fininte body of knowledge. It is s ience, people are still studying to determine tha basics, every now and then, things that people in general thought were true have turned out to be something else. The 'in general thought to be true', were not the fault of physics but of concretization of the mind. 

[Green Baron]

 

Got you until "light has no mass", which my inner translator translated into "a photon has no mass" and then nodded to me. Idiot an the subject (and wikipedia-denier) that i am i kindly ask: what does the slot experiment tell us about quantum entanglement and ftl communication ?

Always eager to learn ...

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Green Baron

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

 

Got you until "light has no mass", which my inner translator translated into "a photon has no mass" and then nodded to me. Idiot an the subject (and wikipedia-denier) that i am i kindly ask: what does the slot experiment tell us about quantum entanglement ? Does measurement influence the outcome, if yes, how ?

Always eager to learn ...

 

Its +/- IMO, read the most recents links i have provided. The important problem is called coherance problem, the problem has been stabilizing entangled pairs so that one can determine their state in one experiment photons that are filtered can determine the fate of the pairs. But the problem is that we cannot know for certain whether this is actually conversion or a selection. IOW the photon you read in the box appears only to be entagled when the other photon is reported a certain way, and if  it is entangled to a third party particle that was sent to expose on part of the pair.

There may be a bias on the part of researchers not to emphasize un read photons because chatty pairs would be a very powerful tool if it proved to be true. 

Here is my impression. Time processes as a consequence of delta in the quantum foam, this does not mean that all components of the foam evolve at the same rate, some evolve through space and others through spacetime. We register the universe as a probabilistic outcome of many events most are local but some are not.  If the photon pairs are connected, then FTL should be possible, but more than likely the spacetime cell that created the photons creates new spacetime entities, these fates are then determined and only can be observed. But i don't create physics just by thinking about it. As has been stated publically by many physicist that There are many unexplored caveots in quantum mechanics, we need to keep this close to our hearts and allow researchers to explore these without adding bias or leading arguments. 

So that the complaint about MWI is this suppose we have a pair of photon these photons then travel through a double slit 13.7 billion years ago if we track the quantum foam, by the time the photon reaches today it has a number, almost infinite,  of possible  interactions that  is in the disk representing our known universe. Either all of that existed back 13.7 billion years ago, or that as the universe progressively adds near universes are created that would be required just for that pair. But these are particles that we can observe, what about particles that we cant observe, they can be as old as inflation traveling as fields with potential outcomes greater in volume than our visible universe, requiring the creation of infinitely large outcomes. We don't observe this, we observe a universe where most of the determinism is local. So that it appears that resolution is often governed by local events, things that happen proximally in this thing called quantum foam, the superposition of quantum states. The states however, as i see it does not require uniform cells, but quite the opposite you can have structure composes of infinitely thin spirally shapes, flat shapes such as near a quantum singularity, etc. So that the extent of an interaction may be governed by the interacting particles. Its a reason, for instance why a resonance orbital can extend the length of millions of atoms, or potential why an electron orbital in the cannae drive might exist outside the drive itself. 

I dont have a problem with spacetime battling it out locally just the wierdist possible solutions. These wierd solutions to us are black swans, its not up to physics to confine itself to our thinking, but for us to discover and elucidate the variances that reveal black swans. This goes into to how photons resolve to understand how it interacts with spacetime. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by PB666

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Got you until "light has no mass", which my inner translator translated into "a photon has no mass" and then nodded to me. Idiot an the subject (and wikipedia-denier) that i am i kindly ask: what does the slot experiment tell us about quantum entanglement and ftl communication ?

Always eager to learn ...

 

Not sure if it is a 100% match to your query but a really good (and my personal favorite) experiment that illustrates weird photon behaviour with slots, measurement and quantum weirdness is called "The Quantum Bomb Tester". I hate to refer you to wiki but the page on it has probably a better explanation than I could muddle through.

Key points:

1. By using weird quantum things, you can measure sometihng without interacting with it at all.

2. It has been practically demonstrated in the real world.

3. It makes my mind go all funny.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester

[Green Baron]

Ok, phew, a little over my poor head.

I realize that two papers suggest a faster than light "communication" as a possible explanation for their observations. Let's assume there weren't any faulty fibre optic cables involved, rememder ? :-)

I take it that entanglement is a system of two photons from the same source. Measuring one of them tells about the other. You send one of the photons to a different place, and still measuring one of them tells about the other. Ok for one pair of photons. Now what if there where many photons to make up a message ? Ok, then we measure a wave-function, right ? It's not possible to tell which photon exactly bears which information, you only get the double bell curve from behind the slit screen. Did i get that right ?

This can hardly be called "communication" ...

 

[PB666]

31 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Ok, phew, a little over my poor head.

I realize that two papers suggest a faster than light "communication" as a possible explanation for their observations. Let's assume there weren't any faulty fibre optic cables involved, rememder ? :-)

I take it that entanglement is a system of two photons from the same source. Measuring one of them tells about the other. You send one of the photons to a different place, and still measuring one of them tells about the other. Ok for one pair of photons. Now what if there where many photons to make up a message ? Ok, then we measure a wave-function, right ? It's not possible to tell which photon exactly bears which information, you only get the double bell curve from behind the slit screen. Did i get that right ?

This can hardly be called "communication" ...

 

In one of the papers, the produce a pair, one is trapped the other travels through space and interacts with another known photon, the photon that was trapped reflects the first interaction. Was this true communication or was it selection.

[Green Baron]

 

"The philosophy of guessing has harmed physics" - there is part of the answer to your question.

We are mixing philosophy/worldview (which anyone can talk about) and physics (only a few have the education/knowledge) and likely to draw premature conclusions like "faster than light comms". Furthermore things are often seized by journalists and transformed into something spectacular that, when taking a closer look, dissolves into pure speculation.

Let's wait until the results have been replicated and implications become clearer.

 

I have a very simple one: cut the ace of spades in two halves, send one half to europe the other to asia. Ask the european what the asian has in his hands. The answer will seem to come faster than light as well :-)

 

Edit: nevermind, dear asians, you could have answered that too, i'm sure :-)

[PB666]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601787/quantum-cryptographers-set-400k-distance-record/

A bit off-topic but deals with the communication issue.

[PB666]

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160708-the-past-is-not-set-in-stone-so-we-may-be-able-to-change-it

[PB666]

http://www.livescience.com/55617-virtual-photons-may-boost-quantum-computing.html
However this article is atrociously click-baity, (real click-baity not feigning stuff complained about by some here in the past, so bad in fact I have removed the link).

Savasta said. "This is a random simultaneous process. We do not know the exact time when the two atoms will decay — however, they will do [so] simultaneously."

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.043601
One Photon Can Simultaneously Excite Two or More Atoms.
Luigi Garziano, Vincenzo Macrì, Roberto Stassi, Omar Di Stefano, Franco Nori, and Salvatore Savasta Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 043601 (2016) – Published 22 July 2016

 

[FreeThinker]

FTL communication might not be possible, but it would still be quite usefull if we can send message though the earth, it could make communication significantly faster and safer