FTL communication

[N_las]

No it doesn't ??? What exactly does it then? Please explain what's so old about the argument and what came out at these discussions.

Imagine you have a flock of self replicating machines, that program themselves by trial and error. They will develop tactics to survive. (Machines with a program that prevents survival won't reproduce, so only the ones with survival progams will survive). If machine #634 uses a survival tactic, that decreases the survival probability of many other machines, they will now automatically develop tactics to prevent #634 from employing his survival tactic.

Notice that this machines don't need free will to deploy such survival tactics.

I won't argue that humans are just like this machines. But if it is "moral" for machines to do that without free will, than it can just as well apply to humans without free will. This is really something a kid could grasp. The words "guilt" and "moral" could be somewhat meaningless, they could be just like variable names in the #634 prevention program. They enable the program to work, they are useful for the compiler, but they are irrlevant from an outside point of view.

A similar argument to yours would be: "If humans have no free will, why should I pay them if they work for me? It wasn't their own free decision to take the job, so why should I reward them with payment?"

Here it is obvious why this is a stupid argument. Even if humans have no free will, even if they are controlled automatically: If you don't pay them, their automatic program will give them the decision to not take the job.

In a similar way, the automatic program in us humans could prevent us from doing crimes, if criminals are punished.

Edited September 25, 2014 by N_las

[Dodgey]

No it doesn't ??? What exactly does it then? Please explain what's so old about the argument and what came out at these discussions.

A similar point of view to N_las. Just because we don't have free will in the sense of a magical soul doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't still apply. As it stands the human body is just a very complex machine with a computer just like anyother. It inputs variables, runs then through a program and spits out an output. With the inputs being our senses and outputs being the electrical signals that move our muscles. I understand that certain input variables will make you respond a certain way and by feeding you different variables I can modify you a certain way. Treat you in one way to change your behavior. This is the essence of education and rehabilitation.

[Science-Recon]

Well, if we ever do colonise other worlds beyond our solar system, FTL communication is a must. Without it imagine the internet!! Life on kepler 22-b (For exmple) would be ages behind Earth.

[ZetaX]

"Behind" is simple the wrong word. It will simply be different, having its own culture.

[N_las]

Well, if we ever do colonise other worlds beyond our solar system, FTL communication is a must. Without it imagine the internet!! Life on kepler 22-b (For exmple) would be ages behind Earth.

Or Earth would be ages behind Kepler 22-b. Humans could actually colonize the whole galaxy. Nobody says we have to be one single civilization that keeps in touch with everybody else. Humans colonized the whole earth starting from africa. The limitation was just how far one person could walk. The stone age people in america haven't had contact with the stone age people in europe either.

[N_las]

Well, if we ever do colonise other worlds beyond our solar system, FTL communication is a must. Without it imagine the internet!! Life on kepler 22-b (For exmple) would be ages behind Earth.

Or Earth would be ages behind Kepler 22-b. Humans could actually colonize the whole galaxy. Nobody says we have to be one single civilization that keeps in touch with everybody else. Humans colonized the whole earth starting from africa. The limitation was just how far one person could walk. The stone age people in america haven't had contact with the stone age people in europe either.

Even if humans would need 1000 Years from now on, to hop from one star to the next (say always a distance of 5 light years every 1000 years). We could spread like a plant through the galaxy in no time. The Milky way is only 120 000 light years in diameter. In 24 million years we would have colonized every part of it. That could have been done three times since the extinction of the dinosaurs. There are many species on earth who are still living and are older than that. So there is nothing in principle to stop a single species to spread over the whole galaxy. We don't really need FTL travel or communication to do that.

[Mr Shifty]

Continuing the free will discussion (which maybe deserves a new thread): There's some evidence that our sub-conscious brain function is composed of a bunch of semi-independent modules, each responsible for its own task: visual processing, language, memory look-up, mathematical analysis, decision making, emotional response, etc. Consciousness is less like a master control program for all these modules than like a unifying user interface. Decisions are merely made at a lower level than conscious thought; this doesn't negate agency, just shifts agency further toward your brain stem. Determinism is uselessly reductive: human behavior is far too complex to admit this kind of analysis. As a first approximation, it makes sense to take things as they seem (humans make conscious decisions), then to modify this model as needs dictate.

[ZetaX]

I agree with most of what you said, but want to comment on this part:

Determinism is uselessly reductive: human behavior is far too complex to admit this kind of analysis.

Humans are indeed too complex to have, at the current level of technology, any chance to have their behaviour be predicted accurately. But the point in determinism is not the possibility to predict, but the fact that it is fully predetermined. This does in no way imply that we can know the result in advance, but if we furthermore assume that the determinism is "analytic", i.e. describable by finite laws (think: clockwork), then we at least could in theory, assuming we gather enough knowledge and computational power. And if it would not be analytic but still deterministic, we could try to make a perfect duplicate of a brain, and both would react exactly the same to everything.

And now the natural question is: are humans deterministic, and if, are they analytic¿

I would answer both with "yes up to absurdely small probabilities", as so far no one has found any scientific evidence that the brain is doing any more than following the same chemical and physical laws as everything else. And up to the best of our knowledge we can actually describe those laws with finite words, at least up to very very small uncertainties from a) quantum physics, all our laws just being very good approximations.

[cantab]

If there was a magic anti-grandfather-paradox mechanism build into our universe, the probablity of 5b will be zero, beause it will create a paradox (we received a different solution as was send). So only 5a is possible. So the solution will always be valid.

Or do you think a magic anti-paradox lightning bolt will strike my machine? It will give me a solution to any differential equation, even before I input the equation into the machine.

Absolutely. And indeed such a technique would revolutionise computing. Although it's probably better to input the equation first, otherwise you have no control over the solution it spits out.

Time loop logic does have its limits mind. One is that if solving the problem would take too long, the scenario where the computer breaks trying becomes more likely. That can be countered to an extent if the problem can be broken up.

Well, if we ever do colonise other worlds beyond our solar system, FTL communication is a must. Without it imagine the internet!! Life on kepler 22-b (For exmple) would be ages behind Earth.

To be honest, with fast sublight travel the timescales involved wouldn't be that different to the situation on Earth before the radio and the aeroplane. And that's a situation that nations built continent-spanning, even global empires in. It would seem like a step backwards compared to the hyper-connected late 20th/early 21st century, but humanity could spread to nearby star systems and still retain a broadly unified civilization.

[WestAir]

I've always felt there was no such thing as free will or coincidence. That everything that has or will ever happen was decided the moment the Universe was created. For example, you could say the birth of the moon was luck, I would say if you trace back the protoplanet that hit us, its trajectory, and its origin, it would be apparent that the collision course that gave us our moon was set in stone from second 1 of existence. Everything that happens had a 100% chance of happening - our ability to predict it, however, is not 100%.* For a deeper explanation, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

The same can be said for our brains. They're physical constructs. With the right technology we can replicate a brain perfectly, down to every neural connection. The fact that the technology to do that doesn't exist doesn't make a difference here: The point is that, because we are physical entities with finite neural capacities, our every move - every thought - every action can be predicted or determined by the network itself. There goes free will.

*I'm aware of the the existence of this theory and the rebuttals against it, especially when we get into discussions like unpredictability and randomness.

[SargeRho]

Quantum Physics I think makes hard determinism impossible.

[Mazon Del]

There is some evidence to suggest that certain aspects of the neurons in our brains may be making use of a limited set of quantum computing type calculations. The science of exactly how that worked was way over my head.

On an interesting thing to note for that is that something that was noted by a group that went on to form the Global Conciousness Project (think as much or as little of them as you will, I'm just reporting what I've read) human thought tends to do some interesting things on quantum chance locally. Namely they noticed that by making a random number generator rated above some stupidly high level of randomness, and then constantly running the calculations on "how random is this thing being?" there is a detectable difference between the item existing in a room by itself, and a human being being near the mechanism and thinking intensely. This effect tends to be a reduction in the 'randomness' of the RNG.

Supposedly they have rigged up their RNG sensors across a great many cities and have noticed some interesting effects. An example being that during periods of high stress or excitement in a city, the randomness falls fairly dramatically. This is generally associated with events like a baseball/football game going on. In one somewhat famous example, they saw a couple of their sensors recording the largest drop in randomness they have ever recorded. They were wondering what the hell was going on in that location but as far as they could tell, it was nothing. When and where was this event occuring? New York City, September 11th 2001. About 3-5 hours BEFORE the first impact.

[ZetaX]

There is some evidence to suggest that certain aspects of the neurons in our brains may be making use of a limited set of quantum computing type calculations. The science of exactly how that worked was way over my head.

Sources please. To the best of my knowledge any neuron (probably even the ion pumps) is way to big for such an effect to be relevant.

On an interesting thing to note for that is that something that was noted by a group that went on to form the Global Conciousness Project (think as much or as little of them as you will, I'm just reporting what I've read) human thought tends to do some interesting things on quantum chance locally. Namely they noticed that by making a random number generator rated above some stupidly high level of randomness, and then constantly running the calculations on "how random is this thing being?" there is a detectable difference between the item existing in a room by itself, and a human being being near the mechanism and thinking intensely. This effect tends to be a reduction in the 'randomness' of the RNG.

Supposedly they have rigged up their RNG sensors across a great many cities and have noticed some interesting effects. An example being that during periods of high stress or excitement in a city, the randomness falls fairly dramatically. This is generally associated with events like a baseball/football game going on. In one somewhat famous example, they saw a couple of their sensors recording the largest drop in randomness they have ever recorded. They were wondering what the hell was going on in that location but as far as they could tell, it was nothing. When and where was this event occuring? New York City, September 11th 2001. About 3-5 hours BEFORE the first impact.

I have heard that before. And that this result was quite bogus. For the critics, just take a look at the Wikipedia article.

[N_las]

Supposedly they have rigged up their RNG sensors across a great many cities and have noticed some interesting effects. An example being that during periods of high stress or excitement in a city, the randomness falls fairly dramatically. This is generally associated with events like a baseball/football game going on. In one somewhat famous example, they saw a couple of their sensors recording the largest drop in randomness they have ever recorded. They were wondering what the hell was going on in that location but as far as they could tell, it was nothing. When and where was this event occuring? New York City, September 11th 2001. About 3-5 hours BEFORE the first impact.

They just pick and choose fitting data. Their random number generators produce anomalous results all the time (at random), just as one would expect from a random number generator. And they is always something going on in the world. If you review past data you will always find matches. Of course there will be tons of events without RNG reaction, and there will be tons of RNG reaction without events. But now and then an event and a RNG reaction coincides. Just concentrate on that and ignore all the rest. It has nothing to do with science, it is just astrologie without planets and always right, because you just have to predict the past.

Edited September 25, 2014 by N_las

[Brotoro]

I've always felt there was no such thing as free will or coincidence. That everything that has or will ever happen was decided the moment the Universe was created...

Nah. I've just decided what to type in reply to your message based on the number of clicks my background radiation monitor put out in a 10 second period. The radioactive decays that caused these clicks occur randomly. Yes, there is a 100% chance those atoms are eventually going to decay, but the timing of which particular nuclei decay when was not pre-set since the beginning of the universe.

So...I expound upon the virtues of chocolate ice cream. The other choices were also tasty foods, but chocolate ice cream was chosen. Now I'm not talking about some lame variation of chocolate ice cream; I'm talking about the really rich and creamy, double-chocolate kind with chunks of dark chocolate embedded in it. Soooo good. And so easy to pick up at a nearby store. You should all do that. Just so we can show that not all events were determined by the state of the universe one second after the big bang.

[N_las]

Nah. I've just decided what to type in reply to your message based on the number of clicks my background radiation monitor put out in a 10 second period. The radioactive decays that caused these clicks occur randomly. Yes, there is a 100% chance those atoms are eventually going to decay, but the timing of which particular nuclei decay when was not pre-set since the beginning of the universe.

So...I expound upon the virtues of chocolate ice cream. The other choices were also tasty foods, but chocolate ice cream was chosen. Now I'm not talking about some lame variation of chocolate ice cream; I'm talking about the really rich and creamy, double-chocolate kind with chunks of dark chocolate embedded in it. Soooo good. And so easy to pick up at a nearby store. You should all do that. Just so we can show that not all events were determined by the state of the universe one second after the big bang.

This is a really nice demonstration. But some people who think the human mind is deterministic won't be convinced by this. One could argue that your mind reacted totally deterministic to a random input. If I would have known the results of your radiation monitor, then I may be able to completely predict your reaction to it.

And of course there will always be people who think that radioactive decay isn't truly random.

[ibeinsane]

That Cracked article is appalling. Quantum entanglement cannot be used to transmit information at faster-than-light speeds.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php

The website you have quoted there is completely incorrect at the interpretation of Quantum Entanglement and data transfer.

Firstly for any communication method to communicate with a receiver at a distance you would not send the decryption method at the same time as the encrypted code, you would send the encryption code before or even have it hard wired in place prior to despatch.

Secondly the whole point of Quantum Entanglement is that you do not need to encrypt anything, it is not possible to hack (Entangled pairs cannot swap their entanglement to another object) and also it is impossible to eavesdrop without being noticed as any measurement of the system influences the outcome. It is this secure communication method that is the main drive for research at this point.

As for the point is it FTL? I honestly don't know and I'm not sure anyone truly knows just yet. We have created entangled pairs over some large distances but I think we are yet to perform experiments detailed enough to see how fast the reaction is, especially as it takes longer for us to measure the state of the entangled pair with our current tech.

[N_las]

The website you have quoted there is completely incorrect at the interpretation of Quantum Entanglement and data transfer.

Firstly for any communication method to communicate with a receiver at a distance you would not send the decryption method at the same time as the encrypted code, you would send the encryption code before or even have it hard wired in place prior to despatch.

The article is correct in principle.

If you want to use Quantum Entaglement for secure communication, you will use it to transfer the encryption code, since both parties only need to have the same random number string. Even if that could be done with FTL, this random number string won't contain any Information. The actual message will be standard communication, in any case slower than light, and you need the "quantum transferd" number string only to decrypt it. You seem to have it backwards.

If you think the encryption code is send (or preinstalled) prior, and the actual message is "quantum transfered", then you are wrong. In a best case scenario one can only send a random sequence FTL. That wouldn't contain information. But even for that, the entagled particles would have to travel the distance at slower than light.

So: Quantum effects can be used for secure communication, but it is not possible to use them for FTL communication.

Secondly the whole point of Quantum Entanglement is that you do not need to encrypt anything, it is not possible to hack (Entangled pairs cannot swap their entanglement to another object) and also it is impossible to eavesdrop without being noticed as any measurement of the system influences the outcome. It is this secure communication method that is the main drive for research at this point.

You are just wrong here. The whole point is, that you can encrypt the message perfectly. As said before, the quantum entanglement is just used to transfer the decryption code.

But you are right about the impossibility of evesdroping. If someone © evesdropes at the transfer of the decription code, then all parties (A and B, and the culprit C) won't have the same random number string, so none can decrypt each others messages.

As for the point is it FTL? I honestly don't know and I'm not sure anyone truly knows just yet.

If you are talking about information tranfer, then of course we know that it isn't FTL. Quantum Mechanics is 100 years old and extremely well understood. To understand the transistors in your computer, you need a much deeper understandig of QM as for this communication stuff.

We have created entangled pairs over some large distances but I think we are yet to perform experiments detailed enough to see how fast the reaction is, especially as it takes longer for us to measure the state of the entangled pair with our current tech.

The speed that the "entaglement reaction" (or whatever you want it to call it) is really irrelevant for the question.

Edited September 26, 2014 by N_las

[ibeinsane]

If you want to use Quantum Entaglement for secure communication, you will use it to transfer the encryption code, since both parties only need to have the same random number string. Even if that could be done with FTL, this random number string won't contain any Information. The actual message will be standard communication, in any case slower than light, and you need the "quantum transferd" number string only to decrypt it. You seem to have it backwards.

If you think the encryption code is send (or preinstalled) prior, and the actual message is "quantum transfered", then you are wrong. In a best case scenario one can only send a random sequence FTL. That wouldn't contain information. But even for that, the entagled particles would have to travel the distance at slower than light.

So: Quantum effects can be used for secure communication, but it is not possible to use them for FTL communication.

You are just wrong here. The whole point is, that you can encrypt the message perfectly. As said before, the quantum entanglement is just used to transfer the decryption code.

If someone © evesdropes at the transfer of the decription code, then all parties (A and B, and the culprit C) won't have the same random number string, so noone can decrypt each others messages.

And the article is correct in principle.

I think you have misunderstood the concept of communication via Quantum Entanglement. The particles are already be in situation and communications are via the entangled affect between the existing pairs. The communication would be as fast as dictated by quantum affects but this would need the apparatus in each location first. After this there is no transmitter or receiver just the 1 entangled particle(s) on earth and 1 elsewhere.

As for the first comment I do not understand. For example Morse code means you have the ability to decrypt in both locations prior to sending or receiving the communications, you do not send a message and then send another message of how to decipher it.

And to reiterate. Please read up on quantum entanglement, there is no need to secure or encrypt the communication as the whole point behind it is that the communication method is already secure.

[ibeinsane]

The article is correct in principle.

If you want to use Quantum Entaglement for secure communication, you will use it to transfer the encryption code, since both parties only need to have the same random number string. Even if that could be done with FTL, this random number string won't contain any Information. The actual message will be standard communication, in any case slower than light, and you need the "quantum transferd" number string only to decrypt it. You seem to have it backwards.

If you think the encryption code is send (or preinstalled) prior, and the actual message is "quantum transfered", then you are wrong. In a best case scenario one can only send a random sequence FTL. That wouldn't contain information. But even for that, the entagled particles would have to travel the distance at slower than light.

So: Quantum effects can be used for secure communication, but it is not possible to use them for FTL communication.

Please define what exactly is exchanged between entangled pairs of particles which can be listened to or how you would remotely change the state of a subatomic particle in mars? This is what would be required to evesdrop or to alter the communication between entangled pairs.

[ibeinsane]

The article is correct in principle.

If you want to use Quantum Entaglement for secure communication, you will use it to transfer the encryption code, since both parties only need to have the same random number string. Even if that could be done with FTL, this random number string won't contain any Information. The actual message will be standard communication, in any case slower than light, and you need the "quantum transferd" number string only to decrypt it. You seem to have it backwards.

This is the current expectation of an earth based communication method as the infrastructure to send entire comms via Quantum Entanglement will likely be expensive and it makes sense to do it this way for security but this is a technical and expense limitation not a limitation of QE to only send sensible decryption data.

If you can send secure encryption methods via QE then you can send other sensible strings, but it is cheaper to send an encryption this way and then use standard radio for the encrypted message.

[N_las]

I think you have misunderstood the concept of communication via Quantum Entanglement. The particles are already be in situation and communications are via the entangled affect between the existing pairs. The communication would be as fast as dictated by quantum affects but this would need the apparatus in each location first. After this there is no transmitter or receiver just the 1 entangled particle(s) on earth and 1 elsewhere.

As for the first comment I do not understand. For example Morse code means you have the ability to decrypt in both locations prior to sending or receiving the communications, you do not send a message and then send another message of how to decipher it.

And to reiterate. Please read up on quantum entanglement, there is no need to secure or encrypt the communication as the whole point behind it is that the communication method is already secure.

No, you misunderstood the concept.

Having 2 boxes with entangled particles, one at mars and one at earth. And then communiating through quantum effects. Thats sound nice. But that has nothing to do with actual quantum communication.

It doesn't matter what I would to to my box of particles, I couldn't influence what you are measuring at your particles. The only thing we know is, that we will get opposite results from a measurment of the particles, so we can use that to get the same random number string, and be sure that no one else knows this string.

The security and impossibility of evesdropping (because anyone who tries would destroy the entenglement) works for this random number string.

Once we both have this secret random number string, then we can communicate with radio or whatever. A random number string makes it possible for us to encrypt any message perfectly (As long as the message is shorter than our random number string)

This is the current expectation of an earth based communication method as the infrastructure to send entire comms via Quantum Entanglement will likely be expensive and it makes sense to do it this way for security but this is a technical and expense limitation not a limitation of QE to only send sensible decryption data.

No, it isn't just a technical limitation, it IS a limitation based on everything we know about Quantum Mechanics.

As for the first comment I do not understand. For example Morse code means you have the ability to decrypt in both locations prior to sending or receiving the communications, you do not send a message and then send another message of how to decipher it.

If you use Morse code, and you encrypt the message, both parties need the same "password". If the password has to be send prior via pony express, then it is possible for someone to intercept the password. If the password is short, one could use trial and error to find it.

To encrypt perfectly, you have to use a password, that is longer (or exactly as long) as your message. Then it will be impossible to find it via trial end error (you will find false passwords (that give you false-positive messages) just as likely as you would find the real one, so you have no way of knowing if you cracked the code).

But even with a password as long as the message, one could intercept it and evesdrop. But if you use entangled particles, both parties can receive an identical random number string. And because of the mechanism behind the entanglemend (as you said, too) it is impossible for someone to evesdrop, without changing the state of the particles, so no one else can possibliy know this random number string.

We can know use this random number string to encrypt our morse signal perfectly.

Edited September 26, 2014 by N_las

[ibeinsane]

No, you misunderstood the concept.

Having 2 boxes with entangled particles, one at mars and one at earth. And then communiating through quantum effects. Thats sound nice. But that has nothing to do with actual quantum communication.

It doesn't matter what I would to to my box of particles, I couldn't influence what you are measuring at your particles. The only thing we know is, that we will get opposite results, so we can use that to get the same random number string, and be sure that know one else knows this string.

Once we have this secret random number string, then we can communicate with radio or whatever. A random number string makes it possible for us to encrypt any message perfectly (As long as the message is shorter than our random number string)

That is not the case, this is one current ability with entangled pairs, not the extend that theory extends to. You can influence the states for entangled pairs but currently we have not been able to do this without collapsing the entanglement resulting in a random bit as you suggest. This is our limitation in technology not a limitation of quantum entanglement. Just as we have not been able to maintain an entangled pair over a huge distance or time or a great number of pairs but are constantly improving this.

One such attempt at demonstrating entangled bit manipulation is published at;

T moz et. al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506

[ZetaX]

The theory actually points to this being _not_ possible. Stop making things up, what N_las said is correct.

And the article you cite seems to not support what you said, either, from what I can pull from the abstract.

[N_las]

T

T moz et. al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506

This paper has nothing to do with this discussion. Of course we can influence the state of a quantum system. But thats beside the point.