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

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
Well my point is more of a conjecture with several different avenues open for thought.
The first is, we dont know everything about the universe yet.
The second is we may not be able to look at the gain of knowledge as a linear sequential progression.
The third is there are sometimes workarounds and tricks.
The fourth is the invention of new technologies and new discoveries.

For the third one, you will notice that when a communication channel is too slow if you double the number of conductors you can double the speed. If you are sending 8 bits per millisecond now you can send 16 bits per millisecond.
If you have memory that can store 8 bits per ms if you double the memory you can double the speed by using interlacing.

If we never see this happen though it isnt my fault :)
It is really interesting to think about though.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
Well my point is more of a conjecture with several different avenues open for thought.
The first is, we dont know everything about the universe yet.
The second is we may not be able to look at the gain of knowledge as a linear sequential progression.
The third is there are sometimes workarounds and tricks.
The fourth is the invention of new technologies and new discoveries.

For the third one, you will notice that when a communication channel is too slow if you double the number of conductors you can double the speed. If you are sending 8 bits per millisecond now you can send 16 bits per millisecond.
If you have memory that can store 8 bits per ms if you double the memory you can double the speed by using interlacing.

If we never see this happen though it isnt my fault :)
It is really interesting to think about though.
While I basically agree with 1..4, no matter what we learn, heavy lead balls won't start to float up from tables in normal earth gravity, just because we understand them at every possible level. The laws that underpin reality exist independently of our knowledge of them. If FTL communications at this level was possible it would be happening now in nature and would be easily detectable with current instruments (In particle accelerators) if the universe didn't cease to exist from a causality paradox..

Forget entangled communications, it's not happening as it's describing the EPR paradox which was first brought up in 1935... extra classical speed information will always be needed. The fact that we 'measure' 10,000x FTL speeds makes in even more unlikely there is communications happening. To say otherwise demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding: it's not the lack of imagination about the problem.

"The research team says their finding disproves the more comprehensible hypothesis--that the particles were sending signals at faster-than-light speed"

It's merely strange, not impossible.
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
While I basically agree with 1..4, no matter what we learn, heavy lead balls won't start to float up from tables in normal earth gravity, just because we understand them at every possible level. The laws that underpin reality exist independently of our knowledge of them. If FTL communications at this level was possible it would be happening now in nature and would be easily detectable with current instruments (In particle accelerators) if the universe didn't cease to exist from a causality paradox..

Forget entangled communications, it's not happening as it's describing the EPR paradox which was first brought up in 1935... extra classical speed information will always be needed. The fact that we 'measure' 10,000x FTL speeds makes in even more unlikely there is communications happening. To say otherwise demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding: it's not the lack of imagination about the problem.

"The research team says their finding disproves the more comprehensible hypothesis--that the particles were sending signals at faster-than-light speed"

It's merely strange, not impossible.
I guess we will all be in the dark (ha ha) until someone can explain this in detail, but you may want to give an idea what you think is happening between them.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
I guess we will all be in the dark (ha ha) until someone can explain this in detail, but you may want to give an idea what you think is happening between them.
Nothing is happening at the level of entangled particles, the something is the act of making the initial entanglement Quantum state correlation, that's why the measured speed is essentially instantaneous. It's our perception/interpretation of what we expect in the classical domain, that our daily level of experience, that confuses us. We are often confused by the differences between correlation and information in the classical domains so it's natural in the strange QM domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)
In the traditional view, it is assumed that there exists a reality in space-time and that this reality is a given thing, all of whose aspects can be viewed or articulated at any given moment. Bohr was the first to point out that quantum mechanics called this traditional outlook into question. To him the "indivisibility of the quantum of action" [...] implied that not all aspects of a system can be viewed simultaneously. By using one particular piece of apparatus only certain features could be made manifest at the expense of others, while with a different piece of apparatus another complementary aspect could be made manifest in such a way that the original set became non-manifest, that is, the original attributes were no longer well defined. For Bohr, this was an indication that the principle of complementarity, a principle that he had previously known to appear extensively in other intellectual disciplines but which did not appear in classical physics, should be adopted as a universal principle.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/
As a consequence, quantum theory forces us to be circumspect in assigning physical reality to individual properties. To avoid contradictions, we must admit that:

  1. A property that is not measured need not exist.
  2. Measurement is an active process that alters the system being measured.
Nor is it paradoxical to find that distant events are correlated. After all, if I put each member of a pair of gloves in boxes, and mail them to opposite sides of the earth, I should not be surprised that by looking inside one box I can determine the handedness of the glove in the other. Similarly, in all known cases the correlations between an EPR pair must be imprinted when its members are close together, though of course they can survive subsequent separation, as though they had memories. Again, the peculiarity of EPR is not correlation as such, but its possible embodiment in complementary forms.
...
The GHZ effect is, in the physicist Sidney Coleman’s words, “quantum mechanics in your face.” It demolishes a deeply embedded prejudice, rooted in everyday experience, that physical systems have definite properties, independent of whether those properties are measured. For if they did, then the balance between good and evil would be unaffected by measurement choices. Once internalized, the message of the GHZ effect is unforgettable and mind-expanding.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
Nothing is happening at the level of entangled particles, the something is the act of making the initial entanglement Quantum state correlation, that's why the measured speed is essentially instantaneous. It's our perception/interpretation of what we expect in the classical domain, that our daily level of experience, that confuses us. We are often confused by the differences between correlation and information in the classical domains so it's natural in the strange QM domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)


https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/
Hello again,

Your first writing is interesting i am going to have to look into that more. But this part:

" Nor is it paradoxical to find that distant events are correlated. After all, if I put each member of a pair of gloves in boxes, and mail them to opposite sides of the earth, I should not be surprised that by looking inside one box I can determine the handedness of the glove in the other. Similarly, in all known cases the correlations between an EPR pair must be imprinted when its members are close together, though of course they can survive subsequent separation, as though they had memories. Again, the peculiarity of EPR is not correlation as such, but its possible embodiment in complementary forms. "

This alternately described by using two suitcases one mailed away and the other kept at home, has been proved to be false.
I am not sure if i can replicate the experiment though it was some time ago perhaps as much s 2 years ago i found out about this. It was very interesting to me because i wondered about that explanation too.
What they explained was that it was like trying to figure out if the universe was trying to "trick" us. It involved statistical methods to prove that the outcome of the far away unit was never predetermined by some set up that happened way before the wave function collapse.
i wish i could remember more about this i dont know why i did not write it down or something.
They used 'cards' like a deck of cards where the universe was dealing the cards and trying to trick us so we always lose.
I'll try to find some writing on the web about this but that's all i can do right now.
Maybe also keep in mind that Einsteins "hidden variables" explanation was also disproved.
In other words, there is nothing traveling with the far away 'half' that has anything to do with the half at home until AFTER the observation of the one at home. So in the practical sense, if you were to move the far half only 1/4 of the full distance you first intended, then observed the home half, you could conceivably get a different outcome that you would have if you moved it 1/2 the way out 3/4 the way or the full distance. Of course it could be the same too for any time that you observe the home half, but it is possible that if you could have moved it (the same exact half of the same exact set which i think is impossible in real life) a different distance you could have gotten a different outcome. In fact if you just waited longer you could have gotten a different outcome, and remember this in theory is the same exact set not a different set, in theory. We cant do that in real life but there is a way to prove that is the reality of entanglement.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
I've given reference and reference it is not possible to communicate any information at all purely with quantum entanglement AT ANY SPEED. Entanglement isn't the same situation described with boxes, suitcases, etc .. but it is a similar analogy.

AGAIN:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ommunicate-faster-than-light/?sh=61ad44614d5d
There are a lot of subtleties associated with how quantum entanglement actually works in practice, but the key takeaway is this: there is no measurement procedure you can undertake to force a particular outcome while maintaining the entanglement between particles. The result of any quantum measurement is unavoidably random, negating this possibility. As it turns out, God really does play dice with the Universe, and that's a good thing. No information can be sent faster-than-light, allowing causality to still be maintained for our Universe.

This is getting tedious with half remembers and repeats of misinformed theories. You can't use it for communications, PERIOD, END.
 
Last edited:

Wolframore

Joined Jan 21, 2019
2,609
keep in mind maxwells equations contradicted Newton until general relativity was discovered. Isn’t it short sighted to claim relativity be contradicted.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
keep in mind maxwells equations contradicted Newton until general relativity was discovered. Isn’t it short sighted to claim relativity be contradicted.
No, it's not short sighted because any future theory must be compatible to a very high degree outside of gravity unification with QM.
It wasn't contradicted, Newton was incomplete. We still use Newton (and flat-earth models) every day in billions of lines of computer code on earth at classical speeds of interaction because the calculation error with relativity is a rounding error in that realm where interactions are near instantaneous at c.

Maxwell's equations don't contradict circuit theory equations either. Circuit theory is a subset of Maxwell's that works well within the constraints of the instantaneous signal, zero length wires and no external field interactions assumptions of circuit theory.
 
Last edited:

bogosort

Joined Sep 24, 2011
696
This alternately described by using two suitcases one mailed away and the other kept at home, has been proved to be false.
The suitcases analogy is an apt description of entanglement.

This is plain to see when we consider an actual example of quantum entanglement, such as occurs when a neutron decays into a proton (beta decay). For this to happen, conservation laws must be obeyed. Since neutrons are electrically neutral, the result of beta decay must also be electrically neutral: the neutron (0 charge) becomes a proton (+1) by emitting an electron (-1) and an antineutrino (0), producing a net zero change in charge.

Likewise, total angular momentum must be conserved. A key component of this is quantum spin, which is one of the dimensions along which particles can become entangled. In the case of beta decay, the sum of the spins of each decay product (proton P, electron e, and antineutrino v) must equal the spin of the neutron (N) when measured along some reference axis:

N = P + e + v

All of these particles are spin-1/2 fermions. Without loss of generality, assume that both N and P have spin +1 along the z-axis. Then, by conservation of angular momentum, e and v must be anti-parallel (have opposite spins): e + v = 0.

Until measured, we don't know whether the electron is spin up (+1) or spin down (-1), but whichever it is, the law of conservation guarantees us that the antineutrino will have opposite spin. The (local) emission event sets this entangled state of affairs, and the electron and antineutrino will remain entangled until some other event changes their state. If a scientist carefully isolates the two particles, they will remain in this entangled state, even if they are separated by millions of miles.

By analogy, the emission event and subsequent isolation is the packing of the two suitcases. The suitcases were correlated the moment they were packed; once separated, they do not need to communicate their contents to each other to exhibit this correlation. The idea that quantum entanglement is a non-local phenomenon, that superluminal communication is required, is a gross misconception.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
I've given reference and reference it is not possible to communicate any information at all purely with quantum entanglement AT ANY SPEED. Entanglement isn't the same situation described with boxes, suitcases, etc .. but it is a similar analogy.

AGAIN:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ommunicate-faster-than-light/?sh=61ad44614d5d



This is getting tedious with half remembers and repeats of misinformed theories. You can't use it for communications, PERIOD, END.
Well, ha ha, thanks for the reply.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
Hello again,

Apparently we are not all on the same page (ha ha).
The authors here mathematically show that quantum communication over the vast distances of space should be possible.

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-mathematical-quantum-interstellar-space.html

I would think that if someone disagrees with any of this and wants to convey that to someone else, they would have to prove that it is impossible mathematically there seems to be no room left for mere opinion.

The main problem point does not seem to be if it can be done in theory, but what could interfere with the signal in space. This tells me that mathematically the signal can be sent and interpreted, as long as nothing gets in the way which would cause decoherence. So now decoherence seems to be the main concern not basic theory of operation. That's a big difference from deciding if it works at all.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
Hello again,

Apparently we are not all on the same page (ha ha).
The authors here mathematically show that quantum communication over the vast distances of space should be possible.

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-mathematical-quantum-interstellar-space.html

I would think that if someone disagrees with any of this and wants to convey that to someone else, they would have to prove that it is impossible mathematically there seems to be no room left for mere opinion.

The main problem point does not seem to be if it can be done in theory, but what could interfere with the signal in space. This tells me that mathematically the signal can be sent and interpreted, as long as nothing gets in the way which would cause decoherence. So now decoherence seems to be the main concern not basic theory of operation. That's a big difference from deciding if it works at all.
The authors are on the same page as me, it looks like you seem to misunderstand the article as usual (not 100% your fault as these articles are designed to be sensational, without flat-out lies).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...um-communications-talk-space-study-finds.html
Aliens could be using 'quantum communication' to send messages across interstellar space, mathematical model suggests
1657381008835.png

Quanta are also still limited by only being able to travel at the speed of light, 186,282 miles per second, meaning messages would still take years to cover inter-planetary distances.
The underlying research only shows that entanglement can exist, not that it can be used to communicate.

Over the past several years, scientists have been investigating the possibility of using quantum communications as a highly secure form of message transmission. Prior research has shown that it would be nearly impossible to intercept such messages without detection. In this new effort, the researchers wondered if similar types of communications might be possible across interstellar space.
There is nothing with scientific data in that article or paper about entanglement speed or entanglement alone being used for actual classical information transmission, only about being nearly impossible to intercept such messages without detection if the fidelity of coherence is preserved over long distances. (how far a wireless signal could make it ) Nothing new to see here, move along. Messages sent and received would still need a classical channel for actual information transfer in a quantum communications system.
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
The authors are on the same page as me, it looks like you seem to misunderstand the article as usual (not 100% your fault as these articles are designed to be sensational, without flat-out lies).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...um-communications-talk-space-study-finds.html
Aliens could be using 'quantum communication' to send messages across interstellar space, mathematical model suggests
View attachment 271141

Quanta are also still limited by only being able to travel at the speed of light, 186,282 miles per second, meaning messages would still take years to cover inter-planetary distances.
The underlying research only shows that entanglement can exist, not that it can be used to communicate.


There is nothing with scientific data in that article or paper about entanglement speed or entanglement alone being used for actual classical information transmission, only about being nearly impossible to intercept such messages without detection if the fidelity of coherence is preserved over long distances. (how far a wireless signal could make it ) Nothing new to see here, move along. Messages sent and received would still need a classical channel for actual information transfer in a quantum communications system.
Hi,

Oh it's that deceiving? That's a shame.

However, the difference is still you believe that it can never be possible while i still believe it still remains to be seen.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
Hi,

Oh it's that deceiving? That's a shame.

However, the difference is still you believe that it can never be possible while i still believe it still remains to be seen.
It's not just me. It's every competent scientist/engineer/technician/warm body that understand QM at a basic level.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
It's not just me. It's every competent scientist/engineer/technician/warm body that understand QM at a basic level.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Hello again,

Oh sorry i didnt realize you spoke for every competent scientist/engineer/technician/warm body that understand QM at a basic level.
Wow, you must have sponsored some huge worldwide survey i bet that took a lot of phone calls.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
That's what they like to say when they want to deride someone else's opinion but it does not add any extra information nor does it prove anything. It's just another way to try to say that someone else's opinion doesnt matter.
For you though it seems to be the opposite:
"Everyone is entitled to something, but not their own opinion."

You just cant stand it that someone else has a different opinion on anything.
But as long as you are ruling the universe, is it ok if i wear a green shirt tomorrow? I'd hate to go against any law of the universe that you know of today.

I must tell you that when there is a topic that has a possibility of someday working out and you insist without end that it will never happen, i will most likely never agree. That is because we dont have all the answers yet and what is to come is absolutely impossible to predict no matter how smart you are or what you've studied or how many people agree with you and no matter who they are. I also suggest you look up all the things that have changed over the years where groups were dead set on believing that they had the full and correct answer only to be changed at a later date.

I think we are done here. If you still want to discuss this we should move to PM's.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
It's not about me or you or our opinions. Sorry, but those are the facts, being upset you've been deceived by pop-sci articles won't change them.

Find a competent scientist/engineer/technician/warm body that understands QM at a basic level that thinks we can us entanglement alone (a requirement for FTL) for classical communications. It's on you.

https://www.aliroquantum.com/blog/quantum-entanglement-communication
Does quantum entanglement violate the speed of light?
No. While quantum entanglement can cause particles to collapse instantaneously over long distances, we can't use that to transport information faster than the speed of light. It turns out entanglement alone is not enough to send data. For example, quantum teleportation uses entanglement to transfer quantum states across long distances. However, teleportation requires sending a classical bit in addition to the entangled qubits. So, while the entanglement operates instantaneously, the information transfer is limited by the speed of the classical information, which travels at the speed of light.
https://towardsdatascience.com/can-...e-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-4446fc532259

Can We Use Quantum Entanglement To Communicate Faster Than The Speed Of Light?

 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
It's not about me or you or our opinions. Sorry, but those are the facts, being upset you've been deceived by pop-sci articles won't change them.

Find a competent scientist/engineer/technician/warm body that understands QM at a basic level that thinks we can us entanglement alone (a requirement for FTL) for classical communications. It's on you.

https://www.aliroquantum.com/blog/quantum-entanglement-communication


https://towardsdatascience.com/can-...e-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-4446fc532259

Can We Use Quantum Entanglement To Communicate Faster Than The Speed Of Light?

Hi,

Yeah but we already know all that. I think maybe you have gone astray about what my argument is. Id like to hear you state what my argument is, in brief so i can make sure you understand my point of view because from the stuff you are posting it sounds like you dont quite understand what i am saying and what i am NOT saying.

I would prefer doing this in a PM now because this turned into mainly some kind of disagreement only.

LATER:
Ok i started a PM conversation about this (FTL topic) but could not get it to send an invite to "nsaspook" but if anyone wants to be invited just let me know.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
I don't take PM's. You want a discussion, say it here.

My basic argument is that your argument about the possibilities here leads to things like discussions of free energy and perpetual motion machines of we take it to the logical conclusion with crackpot ideas and illogical discussions of ever increasing crackpot BS. There is ZERO scientific evidence for that or for your theories about entanglement. I don't really care about what you are saying as a person (it's not personal) as the facts of the matter speak for themselves on this subject. There is no disagreement as there are facts and precise experiments with the scientific data that says no and zero actual factual data on the "maybe' side.
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,389
I don't take PM's. You want a discussion, say it here.

My basic argument is that your argument about the possibilities here leads to things like discussions of free energy and perpetual motion machines of we take it to the logical conclusion with crackpot ideas and illogical discussions of ever increasing crackpot BS. There is ZERO scientific evidence for that or for your theories about entanglement. I don't really care about what you are saying as a person as the facts of the matter speak for themselves on this subject. There is no disagreement as there are facts and precise experiments with the scientific data that says no and zero actual factual data on the "maybe' side.
Hello again,

Well this is no longer a discussion it's you demanding that i take your point of view. We are human first and scientists, engineers, and technicians second. I dont think you understand that. And now you want to try to force me to talk in a certain place which doesnt make that much sense to me sorry.

Although i do agree in part with what you are saying, I think i will agree in full with you on many issues and topics, but this just is not one of them.
I started a PM conversation so that we would not have to subject other readers from having to wade though a disagreement between just two members.
I also cant understand why you would not want to participate in a more private conversation, where either of us can invite other members to participate also (i've checked the box that says 'allow any members to invite new members' or something like that).

So in conclusion i do not think it is worthwhile to talk about the main topic here with you anymore. I believe it would be much better to do in a different area of the forum such as a PM conversation. I do thank you for your contribution so far.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
"We are human first" is totally irreverent and makes my point about your arguments direction.

This is a public forum, this is a public topic and I have nothing private to say to you. The science-fiction area of the forum would be a better place for this discussion, not
 
Top