Faster Than Light Communication Proven Possible

[-SpectraL]

http://www.livescience.com/5499-eins...entangled.html

I remember having a discussion awhile back about this, and lots of members were insisting this wasn't possible. Guess what? It's not only possible, it's already been proven. Soon we will be able to communicate over indefinite distances using photonic entanglement.

[typedthiswithmytits]

fast as light communication proven possible...


you mean sign language right?

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by typedthiswithmytits

fast as light communication proven possible...


you mean sign language right?

Binary is simply 1's and 0's.

[typedthiswithmytits]

ya but sign language is as fast as light also

[Mantikore]

No question that it would be immensely groundbreaking if we can actually get it to work. Though thats a big if

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by Mantikore

No question that it would be immensely groundbreaking if we can actually get it to work. Though thats a big if

It already worked. Did you read the article?

"A new study found that this eerie quantum link can apply even to situations that resemble the larger, everyday world. Scientists entangled two pairs of vibrating particles separated in space, so that when one pair was forced to change its movement, the other pair did as well. "

http://www.livescience.com/7399-smal...-observed.html

[marketgarden]

do we really need fast as light digital communications?

dont fibre optic cables already do this anyway, theres got to be many hundreds of thousands of miles of that installed all over the world already

[-SpectraL]

When you think about it, this is even faster than light, as no time actually passes between the transition of states. The effect is instantaneous... whatever you do on one end of it instantly appears on the other end of it, no matter how far the two ends are apart.

[Mr.Happy]

You mean faster-than-light, Speccy. And using quantum entanglement for faster-than-light communication is an old concept. I'll get excited when they separate them by meters instead of micrometers.

EDIT: Yeah, you caught it as I posted.

[ratfrink]

The article is interesting.

The website is awful though. I clicked on '10 unexplained things' and on the list were Ghosts, Intuition and the Placebo Effect. This isn't a science website at all, it's a fucking joke; that makes me wonder if the article is accurate.

[Treefingers.s]

Originally Posted by Mr.Happy

You mean faster-than-light, Speccy. And using quantum entanglement for faster-than-light communication is an old concept. I'll get excited when they separate them by meters instead of micrometers.

EDIT: Yeah, you caught it as I posted.

Fail.

So this disproves Einstein's theory or what?

[testerman]

Yea this idea's been around a long time. It's pretty weird stuff. It almost seems like 2 entangled particles are really just 3-d cross-sections of one larger particle in higher d. This will be usefull 1,000's of years from now when we colonize other planets and moons in the solar system and other systems.

[J-KO]

How can this be weaponized?

[The Methematician]

lol .... John Jost is a non-existing physicist.

[Rust]

So yeah, I'm still waiting for the article that shows it was proven... At no point in time does that article even mention communication, let alone prove the claim that superluminal communication was achieved..

People here seriously need to read shit.

[Anima Mundi]

Originally Posted by J-KO

How can this be weaponized?

Exactly what I was wondering. WHO THE FUCK IS FUNDING THIS?!

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Mr.Happy

And using quantum entanglement for faster-than-light communication is an old concept.

You mean the fallacious idea that it can be used, sure. Superluminal communication has not been shown to be possible through entanglement alone.

The idea that the particles are entangles is old. The problem is no communication can be achieved through this entanglement.

[Om Namah Shivaya]

Science is finally starting to catch up with the Yogi masters.

yay !

Originally Posted by J-KO

How can this be weaponized?

[Mr.Happy]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

The article is interesting.

The website is awful though. I clicked on '10 unexplained things' and on the list were Ghosts, Intuition and the Placebo Effect. This isn't a science website at all, it's a fucking joke; that makes me wonder if the article is accurate.

I did the exact thing. I got about four items through the list before closing it.

Originally Posted by Rust

You mean the fallacious idea that it can be used, sure. Superluminal communication has not been shown to be possible through entanglement alone.

The idea that the particles are entangles is old. The problem is no communication can be achieved through this entanglement.

Old concept, not old science.

It's not been shown to be impossible, right?

[$hit.got.real]

That article is vague as fuck.

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by Rust

You mean the fallacious idea that it can be used, sure. Superluminal communication has not been shown to be possible through entanglement alone.

The idea that the particles are entangles is old. The problem is no communication can be achieved through this entanglement.

It's you who needs to read.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5852/949.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5807/1916.full

[Om Namah Shivaya]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

It's you who needs to read.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5807/1916.full

Register for Free or Subscribe/Join AAAS to View Full Text.




can you copy and paste the article for us?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Mr.Happy

Old concept, not old science.

Exactly. "You mean the fallacious idea that it can be used, sure."

It's not been shown to be impossible, right?

Neither has the Tooth Fairy Mr. Happy. Pretending this article proves the reality of 'superluminal communication through quantum entanglement' is silly, I'm hope we both can agree on that. It doesn't even mention superluminal communication, let alone begin to prove it's possible.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

It's you who needs to read.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5852/949.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5807/1916.full

No, you do. Not only do those articles predate this news article you're quoting as the actual "proof", but they also don't mention anything about superluminal communication. You're googling journal articles that mention entanglement and then just dumping the links here.

Here are the abstract of both articles so you can see for yourself. Let me know if you need to me quote the entire article, I can easily do that as well.


"The wave nature of particles is rarely observed, in part because of their very short de Broglie wavelengths in most situations. However, even with wavelengths close to the size of their surroundings, the particles couple to their environment (for example, by gravity, Coulomb interaction, or thermal radiation). These couplings shift the wave phases, often in an uncontrolled way, and the resulting decoherence, or loss of phase integrity, is thought to be a main cause of the transition from quantum to classical behavior. How much interaction is needed to induce this transition? Here we show that a photoelectron and two protons form a minimum particle/slit system and that a single additional electron constitutes a minimum environment. Interference fringes observed in the angular distribution of a single electron are lost through its Coulomb interaction with a second electron, though the correlated momenta of the entangled electron pair continue to exhibit quantum interference."



"Kerr rotation measurements on a single electron spin confined in a charge-tunable semiconductor quantum dot demonstrate a means to directly probe the spin off-resonance, thus minimally disturbing the system. Energy-resolved magneto-optical spectra reveal information about the optically oriented spin polarization and the transverse spin lifetime of the electron as a function of the charging of the dot. These results represent progress toward the manipulation and coupling of single spins and photons for quantum information processing. "


Not the complete absence of anything to do with superluminal communication. Quantum communication through entanglement is entirely possible. Superluminal communication, is not; at least not through entanglement alone. If it is possible, it's something different (it might use utilize entanglement in some way, sure, but it's not the same thing). And we haven't discovered any such mechanism.

[Stainless]

Proves fuck all, only shows possible potential.

Entanglement is hardly understood, so the conditions under which it works are also not well understood, and those will be vital to using it in any form other than lab experiments.

[Wooden Pints]

Old news.

[yawanur]

Originally Posted by marketgarden

do we really need fast as light digital communications?

nah we should probably just throw this trash away since we can't sell it at walmart

[Vizier]

Does this mean there will finally be online gaming without fucking LAG?

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by Rust

....And we haven't discovered any such mechanism.

The discovery of quantum interference should automatically imply its practical uses, at least to anybody with even an ounce of common sense.

[Mor3BL7]

no offense to sprectril but spectrils a fuking idiot

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by Mor3BL7

no offense to sprectril but spectrils a fuking idiot

That's like telling the guy who's making a campfire in order to make smoke signals that he's wasting his time. It's like saying he could never make smoke signals with a campfire, and calling him an idiot for thinking he can. Who do you think is the person who is more idiotic? The one making the campfire, or the one calling him an idiot?

[typedthiswithmytits]

the one listening to the other.

[-SpectraL]

Here's another great article on it... they have the premise kinda wrong, but they're definitely onto the principle involved...

http://www.livescience.com/7399-smal...-observed.html

Now an international team of scientists has exhibited this quantum identity crisis using a single hydrogen molecule as their lab equipment. In this case, an incoming X-ray beam strikes the hydrogen molecule, thereby liberating the two electrons that typically buzz around the molecule's two central nuclei. But before these electrons shoot off into the surrounding space, they make a quick pass by one of the nuclei, which act like left and right slits.

The researchers concentrated on the "fast electron" that carried away the majority of the energy. As expected, the fast electron acted sometimes like a wave and sometimes like a particle. Interestingly, this behavior depended on the other "slow electron," which interacted very slightly with the fast electron and in so doing played the part of the "observer." If the slow electron had little energy, it had trouble measuring the fast electron's movement. As a consequence, the fast electron went through both slits like a wave. But if the slow electron had more energy, it got a good look at the fast electron, which responded by choosing one slit like a particle.

Can you say Philadelphia Experiment? I think you can.

[AdMech]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

The discovery of quantum interference should automatically imply its practical uses, at least to anybody with even an ounce of common sense.

A good understanding of quantum physics should automatically show why superluminal communication with entanglement isn't possible. It has nothing to do with distance limitations between particles: it's because a particle's spin state has a 50/50 chance of being up or down whether or not it's been entangled, so there's no way to tell if someone with the other entangled particle has changed that particle's spin state. Thus, you have no way to receive information about the other particle using entanglement alone.

[-SpectraL]

Originally Posted by AdMech

A good understanding of quantum physics should automatically show why superluminal communication with entanglement isn't possible. It has nothing to do with distance limitations between particles: it's because a particle's spin state has a 50/50 chance of being up or down whether or not it's been entangled, so there's no way to tell if someone with the other entangled particle has changed that particle's spin state. Thus, you have no way to receive information about the other particle using entanglement alone.

Just the simple fact that interference can be caused demonstrates the ability to create two states: a normal state, and one that has been interfered with. Once you have created two states, communication becomes possible using binary methods.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

The discovery of quantum interference should automatically imply its practical uses, at least to anybody with even an ounce of common sense.

Practical uses? Of course. Impossible uses, like superluminal communication through entanglement alone, not so much.

Just the simple fact that interference can be caused demonstrates the ability to create two states: a normal state, and one that has been interfered with. Once you have created two states, communication becomes possible using binary methods.

AdMech got there before I had a chance to reply, so you can take a look at his post again because you didn't pay attention.

The issue is not that the two particles aren't entangled or "the creation of two states", the issue is that when you collapse the wave function of one particle (in order to affect the other), there is an equal probability that it will end up in any of the states possible. Moreover, to be able to observe which state the particle is in, you have to collapse the wave function in the first place.

Imagine that you and I had these little boxes that when you opened them, emitted a yellow color of light. You can't change the color unless you put both in "entanglement mode", close both boxes, and then open one of them. If you do that, when you open the first box, a color is chosen at random and both boxes will now have that color forever.

So now imagine both our boxes are entangled, initially emitting that yellow color when either of us open the box. How could you communicate with me? You can't set the color to anything in specific. You can't tell me" Hey Rust, red means I'm hurt". It's random. No communication.

But you could be thinking, "Oh, I know, if I change the color, regardless of what that color ends up being, it means something, so we can communicate that way". The problem is entanglement doesn't work that way. In order for one person to know the state of the particle, they have to collapse the wave function (if it wasn't collapsed already), so they don't know if they themselves caused that state to be there, or other person did! To continue the analogy, once they are both in "entanglement mode" any opening of the box causes the light to change forever. If you try to change the color by opening yours and changing the color, when it comes time for me to open mine to check what color it is, I won't know if I myself caused that color change by opening it, or if you did by opening yours!

No faster than light communication through entanglement alone.

-----

You were told all of this before:

"This discovery posed a serious conceptual challenge to physicists of the day, because faster-than-light influences were assumed to be prohibited by special relativity. In that framework, it was thought superluminal effects would lead to causal contradictions because a change of reference frame can reverse the order of the events. It is now understood that while these nonlocal correlations do occur, they cannot be used to transmit information and thus do not violate causality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement


Superluminal communication is the term used to describe the hypothetical process by which one might send information at faster-than-light (FTL) speeds.

Some theories and experiments include:

Group velocity > c experiments
Evanescent wave coupling
Tachyons
Quantum non-locality

According to the currently accepted theory, three of those four phenomena do not produce superluminal communication, even though they may give that appearance under some conditions. As for tachyons, their existence remains hypothetical; even if their existence were to be proven, attempts to quantize them appear to indicate that they may not be used for superluminal communication, because experiments to produce or absorb tachyons cannot be fully controlled [1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-..._communication

[Figure-8]

Originally Posted by Mr.Happy

You mean faster-than-light, Speccy. And using quantum entanglement for faster-than-light communication is an old concept. I'll get excited when they separate them by meters instead of micrometers.

EDIT: Yeah, you caught it as I posted.

When people do it, it is almost 100% beyond a few meters.

[Rust]

^ Yes, I'm sure delusion is a very lengthy place.

[Om Namah Shivaya]

Naturally, there will be delusion when you're surrounded by illusions.

[The Methematician]

Originally Posted by -SpectraL

,,,,,,, The one making the campfire, or the one calling him an idiot?

well if he tried to make a campfire out of objects that he suspected to be wood ... objects that in reality that cen be or be not wood ....

then I say he ... the campfire guy is seriously retarded.