h a l f b a k e r y
Like a magnifying lens, only with rocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
faster than light communication via bells theorem
By using the einstien-boseman effect that entangles particles together so that they are connected to each other and a change in one will instantly change the other.
By devising a machine that constantly observes a set of these e-particles.
Changing the rotation of one particles via magnetic fields
will cause the twin particle to spin the oppsite way.
We could communicate via binary switching over "any" distance.
in 1964 js bell theorized that the einstein-rosen-podolowsky effect
did indeed exist.
That two particles are connected through a deeper reality.
Later physicist alan aspect (sic) proved this in a test.
He created two particles and changed the "POLARITY" of one of them.
The twin particle instantly changed to an opposite polarity.
This example of entaglement and deeper reality along with just one more bit of news lead me to this concept.
I read that scientists are upping the entanglement beyond the particles scale to atoms and molecules.
and perhaps even larger.
If any one has any links to the aspect experiment in the 60's please link here.
Thanks, hope this explains the idea better.
BTB I propose just sensing the polarity of the core e-item.
not the momentum or mass or any other quantum function state.
Quantum Time Reversal
You'd have to separate blobs of the condensate. Perhaps it would be easier to make such a condensate out of quantum dots [dean, Mar 14 2000]
Of course there'll always be some people who think you can communicate faster than light... [hippo, Mar 14 2000]
NOVA #2612: Time Travel
PROF. GUENTER NIMTZ claims his team broadcast Mozart faster than light with Quantum tunneling [johan, Mar 14 2000]
Electronic pre-print archive for quantum physics [cosma, Mar 14 2000]
||How would you be able to tell if the motion of the particle on your end is the result of its own random motion or the actions of someone trying to communicate?
||Make sure that it is possible to acquire useful information from the particle on one end without having to know about the particles on the other end. You'll find that it's devilishly hard to transmit information faster than lightspeed.
||(Interesting, but the act of observing the particle will change it such that no information would be transferred from the twin particle.)
||This is sometimes a useful way to think about faster-than-light information transfer: Imagine a wave hitting a straight beach. If the angle between the beach and the wave is very small, the point where the wave breaks moves along the beach very fast. If this angle is small enough, then the point where the wave is breaking moves along the beach faster than light. "Hurrah!", you might think, "I can send information this way". But if you think about it, while there's something moving faster than light - the point at which the wave breaks - there's no information in this which isn't already known at the other end of the beach.
||Anyone note the recent patent granted for a "Hyper light
||I'm going to be incredibly rude and pull
rank on the strength of actually being a
physicist. Sorry in advance.
||This idea is simply flat-out impossible,
unless almost everything we know about
quantum physics is wrong.
||It's true that there are "non-local", FTL
connections between entangled particles.
Bell's Theorem says (in essence) that if
there are no non-local connections, then
the correlations between measurements
made on entangled particles can't be
above a certain strength. What Alain
Aspect and his group did in the early
1980s was show that you could get
correlations stronger than Bell's inequality
allowed. Thus, there are non-local
connections, as standard quantum
||You can also use equally standard
quantum mechanics to show that there's
no way of using those non-localities to
send FTL messages; it can't have any
causal effects. The proof's a bit
technical, but not too bad; it's in the last
chapter of David Griffith's splendid
textbook _Introduction to Quantum
Mechanics_ (1994), along with Bell's
||Measuring spin or polarization is no
different from measuring any other
property of a particle, like momentum or
position. Changing the spin of one
particle by outside intervention will
destroy entanglement. (That's why
Aspect's experiments were passive
measurements of polarization, which
didn't muck with his particles.) This loss of
entanglement is called "decoherence,"
and is the main reason why we live in
classical rather than quantum world.
(There's a fine popular exposition of
decoherence in David Lindley's _Where
Does the Weirdness Go?_ .)
||Entanglement has nothing to do with
a "Einstein-Bosemann effect", which
doesn't exist, nor even really with
Bose-Einstein statistics, which do exist.
It does have something to do with
Bose-Einstein condensates, which
particles obeying BE statistics form at low
||Entanglement does have a lot to do with
quantum computing, but that's a whole
different bag of worms.
||Stated above: "How would you be able to tell if the motion of the particle on your end is the result of its own random motion or the actions of someone trying to communicate?"
||This is an age-old problem, not limited to this technology in any way. I feel this way in most meetings.
||This idea is taken from a series of novels writeen by Ursula LeGuin. The ansible is a piece of technology that makes FTL transmission of information possible . One of her books, The Dispossed, goes into quite alot of detail about 'Simultaneity Theory' which is where the quote about the BE effect comes from if i'm not mistaken.
||The name "ansible" for an instantaneous communicator has spread to science-fiction in general. I think it's used that way in one of Orson Scott Card's _Ender_ sequels, for example. The exact mechanism by which it works is usually not explained...
||It's actually used in 'Ender's Game' first. I've seen it many places, though...
||In fact, I believe that one of Card's characters casually mentions that the name from the device came from an old story.
||Steve, I meant 'Card used it first in Ender's Game, not in 'one of the sequels'...'. And one of the characters, the general training Ender, does mention the name came from an old story.
||Probably the politically closest you can do without FTL phenomena is anonymous crossposting to usenet, if, like Shevek in the story, you have some kind of science or technology you'd like to copyleft.