is-quantum-communication-faster-than-the-speed-of-light?

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,726
If something changes in the past the ever present now will adjust to match it. And we would never know. Time as we understand it in the first person may just be an illusion. Time travel may yet indeed be possible, but the consequences for us would be catastrophic. Again, we would never know what could have been.

To use the term rewrite concerning time travel in faster than light travel, is probably an error because our language can't handle the concepts. There may indeed just be one now, and no other.
We, as humans might not know but the universe will. FTL is not decided by humans, the universe is, by every sane theory in existence, is structured for FTL not to happen. If we, by some voodoo eventually make it happen, I expect the universe to be very upset, unhappy until we make an FTL bomb (bombs are easy, space-ships are hard) and destroy humanity before the bombs are launched. ;)

FTL BOMB

http://retrophaseshift.com/2016/11/04/4-dangers-ftl-travel/
Since the dawn of spaceflight, mankind has been stalled by the limiting factor that is the speed of light. But no longer–with the advent of Faster-Than-Light (FTL) travel, the entire galaxy is now our backyard. The idea of visiting other worlds, perhaps to seek out new life and new civilizations, going boldly where no one has gone before… it’s very appealing, isn’t it? And it’s finally a reality, so you might be tempted; Earth is boring and well explored, after all, and no new intelligent species are likely to be popping up any time soon. But before you sign up to join the space exploration agency of your choice, consider all the ways this FTL trip could go horribly, horribly wrong. Warp drives, Jump drives, or Hyperspace, they all have their problems, and here are 4 of the biggest dangers of FTL travel.
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
If something changes in the past the ever present now will adjust to match it. And we would never know. Time as we understand it in the first person may just be an illusion. Time travel may yet indeed be possible, but the consequences for us would be catastrophic. Again, we would never know what could have been.

To use the term rewrite concerning time travel in faster than light travel, is probably an error because our language can't handle the concepts. There may indeed just be one now, and no other.
Hello again,

Ok well if something changes in the past and the 'now' adjusts to it, then do we care? If seems that if we dont know it then we dont have to know it, so if at 2 pm a ball hits the ground at position (2,4) from some origin and then something changes in the past at 1pm that makes the ball fall at position (5,7) then we would have no recollection of the previous position so i would think we could still say that 1pm caused something to happen at 2pm.
But you can elaborate more if you like.

This sounds similar to what i like to say about time some times. If during the time 1:00:02 pm to 1:00:03pm (one second later) we see something happen, we dont know for sure if it took longer than something that happened from 1:00:01 pm to 1:00:02pm because we accept that the passage of time is uniform. It could take 1000 years in another reference system to get from that 1:00:02pm to 1:00:03pm we would never know and we would never care.
In fact, time could have stopped at 1:00:02 and we would never know it at 1:00:03 pm because we would still experience it the same as usual. So does it really matter if it stops every now and then. To us i dont think it matters because we experience every new second the same as the last.

Time can be an illusion, but we still seem to know that things have changed. Physical things evolve and they appear to have a uniform sequence where one follows the other. If we said that reaction #3 came after #1 but where unsure, it seems that we could pick a midpoint and that would be between 1 and 3, so the sequence would be 1,2,3 and it seems hard to believe that if we could fit that 2 in there that 3 didnt come after 1.
 

Thread Starter

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,838
No FTL bombs need exist, just hit a planet with one ton going 99% of the speed of light it will probably broken into pieces.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,726
No FTL bombs need exist, just hit a planet with one ton going 99% of the speed of light it will probably broken into pieces.
The equivalent KE is 10,500,000 megatons (a 1kg stone @99% c)? Maybe FTL would be easier. :eek:
It takes 23g of anti-matter annihilation with matter for a megaton.

 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
I've been doing some more reading about these things and other related.

A long time ago i learned that using intuition is the worst way to solve a problem unless you have no choice. However, even today i find it hard to push that down and use pure logic. I think it is because intuition works so well in many cases that when we run into something unique we think we cn handle it the same way.
The best example i think is the relativity theories. We thought that gravity was a force but Einstein found out different. Intuitively it seems to act like a force so we go on working with it as such and it works because it parallels what is actually happening, at least almost.

So now we find out that everything we believed about the universe is pretty much wrong because we were using our intuition and a pile of theories bsed on that.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
Science intuition works well when it's well informed to detect the loads of science BS we see daily generated in the media from those with an obvious profit motive.
Yes apparently it does well to guide us, just not to depend on entirely. To me intuition is just another form of heuristics which works with general things and when we need details we turn to pure logic and hope that doesnt fail too.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,726
Yes apparently it does well to guide us, just not to depend on entirely. To me intuition is just another form of heuristics which works with general things and when we need details we turn to pure logic and hope that doesnt fail too.
I've found that pure logic explains and helps to simply what intuition suggests. You need both the formalize problems but 'hard-dog' type problems of any kind usually defy logic.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
I've found that pure logic explains and helps to simply what intuition suggests. You need both the formalize problems but 'hard-dog' type problems of any kind usually defy logic.
Yeah it's funny that although logic is the most perfect way to resolve an issue, the problem is that if just one, single, tiny assumption is wrong, the entire outcome could be completely and efficiently wrong.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,726
Instinct, intuition and fun are the drivers of human discovery. Logic is a simple abstraction of the process that IMO is a small sub-set of intelligence that's useful mainly for explaining and mimicking the process of intelligent problem solving.


The Columbo of physics. :)
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
Instinct, intuition and fun are the drivers of human discovery. Logic is a simple abstraction of the process that IMO is a small sub-set of intelligence that's useful mainly for explaining and mimicking the process of intelligent problem solving.

Hi,

It sounds like we might be talking about a different kind of logic. When i say logic i not only mean Boolean logic but also logical reasoning in general.
I believe humans work on logic if they dont the are called 'nuts' or 'crazy'. Everything we see and do requires logical reasoning to evaluate what is before us so we can make some logical decision. It may not always be the right decision, but it's based on the evaluation; reasoning so we can comprehend what is going on.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
Hello again,

I ran into the article about the Chinese measuring the speed of 'communication' between two entangled particles.
I'll paraphrase and keep it short.


START
The speed of the transfer of information in entangled systems is said to be faster than the speed of light. This violates relativity in that nothing can travel faster than light. Many have tried to measure the speed of entangled "communications" but have failed. The Chinese scientist were able to perfect the technique of measurement. A 'ton' of work is being done in this field and a growing number of physicists believe that we will eventually be able to transfer information faster than light by cleverly using quantum entanglement to our advantage. The way the Chinese did the measurement was they entangled pairs of photons then transmitted half of the pairs about 15km apart. The team then observed the first half of the entangled pair then waited to see how quickly the other half changed state. They repeated the process for over 12 hours to ensure accuracy. The result was the speed was 3 trillion meters per second. That, however, was a lower speed limit as the experiment improves they expect that to increase.
END

Now how they observed the second half of the pair i dont know they must have had some trick.
Im not sure how this as is would work out because it sounds to me you'd have to send one half of the pair first. That would mean you'd have to send a lot of half pairs first then later do some communications. So the 'communcations' would be faster than light but it would be a deferred transfer. That could still work but they may come up with something better in the future.

I had thought that this would be the best way to measure the speed of light too and put to rest the idea that when light goes out and reflects back, the light could be going at a different speed going out than when it is coming back. Strange as that sounds, there is no way yet to prove that it is the same both ways.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,726
Hi,

It sounds like we might be talking about a different kind of logic. When i say logic i not only mean Boolean logic but also logical reasoning in general.
I believe humans work on logic if they dont the are called 'nuts' or 'crazy'. Everything we see and do requires logical reasoning to evaluate what is before us so we can make some logical decision. It may not always be the right decision, but it's based on the evaluation; reasoning so we can comprehend what is going on.
I certainly hope it's not logical reasoning at the core because logic doesn't require intelligence. In other words, a logical argument isn't necessary intelligent.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,726
Hello again,

I ran into the article about the Chinese measuring the speed of 'communication' between two entangled particles.
I'll paraphrase and keep it short.


START
The speed of the transfer of information in entangled systems is said to be faster than the speed of light. This violates relativity in that nothing can travel faster than light. Many have tried to measure the speed of entangled "communications" but have failed. The Chinese scientist were able to perfect the technique of measurement. A 'ton' of work is being done in this field and a growing number of physicists believe that we will eventually be able to transfer information faster than light by cleverly using quantum entanglement to our advantage. The way the Chinese did the measurement was they entangled pairs of photons then transmitted half of the pairs about 15km apart. The team then observed the first half of the entangled pair then waited to see how quickly the other half changed state. They repeated the process for over 12 hours to ensure accuracy. The result was the speed was 3 trillion meters per second. That, however, was a lower speed limit as the experiment improves they expect that to increase.
END

Now how they observed the second half of the pair i dont know they must have had some trick.
Im not sure how this as is would work out because it sounds to me you'd have to send one half of the pair first. That would mean you'd have to send a lot of half pairs first then later do some communications. So the 'communcations' would be faster than light but it would be a deferred transfer. That could still work but they may come up with something better in the future.

I had thought that this would be the best way to measure the speed of light too and put to rest the idea that when light goes out and reflects back, the light could be going at a different speed going out than when it is coming back. Strange as that sounds, there is no way yet to prove that it is the same both ways.
BS that part of the article that's very unlikely to be written by any sort of person that works with quantum entanglement or causality. There is nothing that transfers FTL in entangled systems.

Is the quantum entanglement effect faster than the speed of light?
Originally Answered: Is quantum entanglement effect faster than the speed of light?
It is wrong to think of entanglement as an effect that propagates through space and time with some meaningful velocity. When a pair of photons are entangled, it's not like one is sending a signal to the other to let it know how its buddy is doing. When they are entangled, it means that the same set of variables control both photons' behavior. These variables do not travel along with either photon, nor are they transmitted from one photon to the other. They simply are.
Perhaps it helps to make better sense of entanglement by dropping the naive notion of particles in favor of the fields of quantum field theory. Yes, unit (quantized) excitations of those fields manifest themselves as apparent particles (at least in flat spacetime). But it helps to remember that until a "particle" is observed through an interaction, it does not even necessarily exist as a spatially localized entity (think, e.g., about two-slit experiments). So instead of entangled particles what we really have is entangled excitations of fields that are present in all of space and time. So given that the location of even a single particle is not well defined in the classical sense until it is observed, perhaps the notion that two such nonlocalized entities exhibit a correlation becomes a tad less mysterious and spooky.
Name one actual physicist in an actual scientific paper that thinks we will eventually be able to transfer information faster than light by cleverly using quantum entanglement?

https://futurism.com/chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-quantum-entanglement-2
Of course, this violates relativity in the sense that nothing can travel faster than light. At the moment, relativity is clear because you can’t send useful data using quantum entanglement as of yet. Even then, a ton of work is being done in this field and a growing number of physicists believe we’ll achieve faster-than-light communication by cleverly using quantum entanglement to our advantage.
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
I certainly hope it's not logical reasoning at the core because logic doesn't require intelligence. In other words, a logical argument isn't necessary intelligent.
I can tell from this last line you wrote that we are talking about different things or a different way of looking at some things.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
BS that part of the article that's very unlikely to be written by any sort of person that works with quantum entanglement or causality. There is nothing that transfers FTL in entangled systems.

Is the quantum entanglement effect faster than the speed of light?
Originally Answered: Is quantum entanglement effect faster than the speed of light?


Name one actual physicist in an actual scientific paper that thinks we will eventually be able to transfer information faster than light by cleverly using quantum entanglement?

https://futurism.com/chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-quantum-entanglement-2
Yes that would be nice, but even more i'd like details of how the experiment was performed and how measurements were made. I mentioned this before in this thread too because i have to wonder how they could measure the state of the second half of the pair without disturbing it BEFORE the first half of hte pair was observed. I think it could be using a special quantum effect that is considered "gentle" but i cant be sure until i see something with more detail. I might look around the web a little.

I might also restate my general opinion about physics in general. It is very possible that what we believe today will be false tomorrow. We can say that it wont be false, just revised, but that way of thinking is still in the ream of classical physics. We are into a different ballgame entirely when it comes to quantum physics and what can be done with it. Thus, i ALWAYS leave the door open for new things and really that means i can never be wrong because it if doesnt happen i never said it definitely would, and if it does happen well that's nice.
The key point here though is i will never state something as having an indefinite life span especially when exploring totally new ground. To do otherwise would be like standing on one side of a mountain while not being able to see over the top, yet claiming you know what is on the other side without ever seeing it and not being told what it might be. Only the future itself is indefinite.

Thanks for the reply.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,726
Yes that would be nice, but even more i'd like details of how the experiment was performed and how measurements were made. I mentioned this before in this thread too because i have to wonder how they could measure the state of the second half of the pair without disturbing it BEFORE the first half of hte pair was observed. I think it could be using a special quantum effect that is considered "gentle" but i cant be sure until i see something with more detail. I might look around the web a little.

I might also restate my general opinion about physics in general. It is very possible that what we believe today will be false tomorrow. We can say that it wont be false, just revised, but that way of thinking is still in the ream of classical physics. We are into a different ballgame entirely when it comes to quantum physics and what can be done with it. Thus, i ALWAYS leave the door open for new things and really that means i can never be wrong because it if doesnt happen i never said it definitely would, and if it does happen well that's nice.
The key point here though is i will never state something as having an indefinite life span especially when exploring totally new ground. To do otherwise would be like standing on one side of a mountain while not being able to see over the top, yet claiming you know what is on the other side without ever seeing it and not being told what it might be. Only the future itself is indefinite.

Thanks for the reply.
What they are actually measuring is the speed of nothing.


There is nothing in QM that says the impossible is possible or there is a entirely new ballgame that just makes up rules to fit our wants, it's just strange.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-is-quantum-entanglement
Suppose Alice is standing one block away, and she sees that Prof. Bertlmann’s left sock is blue. Immediately, she knows that Bob—who’s keeping an eye on Bertlmann’s right sock—will see pink. This holds true even if Alice is light-years away from Bertlmann, following all the sartorial goings-on with a telescope. Once she measures the color of one sock, Alice instantaneously knows something about what Bob will measure about the other sock. This is because the pair of mismatched socks are what physicists (and overqualified wardrobe consultants) describe as being correlated with one another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss

The interpretations of the results leave the door open for fantasies and unprovable models that can't exist in this universe.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
8,984
What they are actually measuring is the speed of nothing.


There is nothing in QM that says the impossible is possible or there is a entirely new ballgame that just makes up rules to fit our wants, it's just strange.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-is-quantum-entanglement


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss

The interpretations of the results leave the door open for fantasies and unprovable models that can't exist in this universe.
Hello again,

Well i appreciate your counter arguments we do have to think carefully about all this, and what bothers me is we never seem to get enough information to make a really good independent judgment on most of this stuff. What we really need is a log of how the experiments were done and what equipment was being used. One thing i do know now is that they used a special satellite built just for tests like these an they generated millions of entangled photons per second.
That said, there are several physicists i have now read about that agree with the Chinese experiments.

One scientist described the achievement of what the system can do was on par with detecting a single photon on the surface of the earth that bounced off of someones face standing on the moon. This was just to give an idea of how sensitive the system was that was used for the experiments.

I am not sure if this helps, but they have proved that the correlation is not predetermined but actually remains non deterministic until after the observations. That of course means that it is not just about not knowing what 'state' the receiving end photon will be in, it means that the outcome has not yet even reality until after the observation because as i am sure you know they are in all states at the same time until observed.
That in itself should tell us we are dealing with something very different than what we have normally worked with.

I understand what you are saying about the limits in the universe, but we have to keep in mind they are STILL based on what we know NOW. No matter how hard we try, we can not really use that information to predict what will come in the future, even the near future. We can make educated guesses that's all we can do for now.

I can see how your view is. It is like an evolution in knowledge rather than a complete rewrite. I happen to think it is both ... complete rewrites followed by improvements. The improvements might be viewed as a sequence that is semi predictable, but a rewrite is a sporadic event with no hint of what is coming next except maybe that something is changing.
So i think we disagree on some things at a certain low level that has to do with our backgrounds.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,726
Yes, the speed experiment was first done in 2008 in Europe so the Chinese experiment was just a confirmation of previous results. It's changes nothing about the subject of this thread being impossible. An infinite speed correlation doesn't transform it into information.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07121
Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’

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 performed1, and loopholes related to locality2,3,4 and detection5,6 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.
The conclusion was that the minimal speed of hypothetical spooky action at a distance, under plausible assumptions for this experiment, is at least 10,000 times greater than the speed of light. The existence in nature of a real spooky action at a distance is therefore deemed implausible.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/quantum-weirdnes-wins-again-entangl-2008-08-13/
Quantum weirdness wins again: Entanglement clocks in at 10,000+ times faster than light


The research team says their finding disproves the more comprehensible hypothesis--that the particles were sending signals at faster-than-light speed--and instead supports the stranger theory of instant communication. Dr Terence Rudolph of Imperial College, London, remarks that "any theory that tries to explain quantum entanglement... will need to be very spooky - spookier, perhaps, than quantum mechanics itself"
 
Last edited:
Top