A Model For Eliminating / Confirming Time Dialation

As I've already said, you can't do this. The first time you measure the particle, you've destroyed its entanglement and, with it, the quantum communication channel. The particle does not go "ding" when a message comes in.

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is what I am doing. Of course, you don't need to because you already know it all. Worst case of academic arrogance I have ever seen. Did they
have to call someone before they could view this beam of light?

"Australian physicist Dr Lam, and fellow Australia National University (ANU) colleague Warwick Bowen, made their breakthrough with a beam of light in June 2002.

In their experiment, they perfected the procedure of destroying a beam of light and successfully putting it back together a metre away.

It was achieved because of a process called "entanglement", whereby two particles - in this case photons of light - have related properties even when they are far apart."
Australian physicist Dr Lam, and fellow Australia National University (ANU) colleague Warwick Bowen, made their breakthrough with a beam of light in June 2002.

In their experiment, they perfected the procedure of destroying a beam of light and successfully putting it back together a metre away.

It was achieved because of a process called "entanglement", whereby two particles - in this case photons of light - have related properties even when they are far apart."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3774369.stm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I'm arrogant, then you're ten times worse so. You read an article from the BBC and think you know more than I about quantum mechanics!

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I certainly did not claim I knew more than you. I said you claimed you knew it all.

 

I've told you specifically, several times now, that what you think is possible is not. Despite your misinterpretations of BBC articles, superluminal communication via quantum entanglement is just not possible. Please do some more reading -- and not just popular articles -- before continuing to argue.

- Warren

 

You are still missing the point. Listen carefully. There is a series of continuing particles being sent as messengers. I sample one every second, or minute or hour or day. But when I sample one and see its state has changed I know to go check the message file.

So yes you are destroying the entanglement of a series of messenger particles as a means of knowing when to "One Time Only" poll the message file.

 

Sorry to inform you CH but it has already been claimed to have been done.!! They can nw select spin-up, spin-down or super position of pairs or groups of entangled particles.

And "No" I don't think you can show anywhere that I said "We have FTL communication capabilities". What I said was it now appears we can in the future have FTL communications.

(That is assuming people stop basing their opinion on just their opinion and look at current data and use some common sense on how to apply it for that purpose).

A quality of 0.75 might be good for some things but not military strategy messges etc where 25% of the message is garbage.

 

You are still missing the point. Listen carefully. You cannot poll an entangled particle -- even one in a continuing stream -- to see when it "changes." Whenever you measure it, you'll always get either spin-up or spin-down. After the first measurement, the particle will be locked into that state and will never change again. You'll never be able to know whether a) the particle was already in that state because the sender manipulated his own particle or b) your own measurement caused it to enter that state.

Futhermore, of course, the sender can't even specify which state he wants you to receive.

You really do seem to have a lot of very fundamental misunderstandings of quantum mechanics. I don't expect you to try to learn anything, however. I know I'm talking to a brick wall.

- Warren

 

This doesn't even make sense. By definition, entangled particles are in a superposition of states.

More wishful thinking with absolutely zero evidence for support. Your misinterpretations of contrary evidence do not count.

- Warren

 

Thanks for your positive contribution vs your old style. Now are you saying that particles toggle, don't toggle or may or may not toggle upon being polled?

It has been my understanding their status was readable as being their state if not entangled and toggle if polled in an entangled state.

AH

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but I think I see your point. I would not know if I toggled it by polling or if I merely read a pre-toggled particle that was no longer entangled. - Yes?

This seems behind the times. They can select the state now.

 

I'll try to find the link to the paper.

 

Here is one method show for generating polarixed photons of a specific polarization
as well as controlling the frequency of the entangled photons at the same time:

Finally, it is worth noting that our source may be used to
create photon pairs that are entangled in polarization. In Fig.
1, we were only concerned with down-converted photons
polarized along the y axis. If the pump beam is polarized
along the z axis and we use a material with the symmetry
properties of GaAs which has xzxy
(2)5 xzyx
(2) and xzxx
(2)5 xzyy
(2)
50 @16#, we will get a counterpropagating polarizationentangled
state (uHV&1uVH&) directly from the crystal @20#.
Furthermore, we can obtain this polarization entanglement
while independently controlling the frequency entanglement
by manipulating the pump beam, as previously described.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation;
the Center for Subsurface Sensing and Imaging Systems
~CenSSIS!, an NSF Engineering Research Center; the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ~DARPA!; and
the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
http://people.bu.edu/teich/pdfs/PRA-67-053810-2003.pdf

Never mind, it still doesn't work for messaging.

 

James R.,

Right now it is getting late and I'm getting tired. This is not what i was looking for but close. SoI'll post what I have.

Session L34 - Electron Entanglement and Quantum Computation.
... for the detection of spin entanglement via noise ... In the regime of interest the particle-hole
excitations ... gradient is used to enable selective spin excitations. ...
flux.aps.org/meetings/YR01/MAR01/abs/S4440.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

(Selectiv Spin) But I don't see it discussed in the abstracts.

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~comop/pdf/nov5.pdf
(Selective Spins)


http://ics.org.ru/pubsfiles/e/408pdf.pdf
(non-destructive polling)


http://heart-c704.uibk.ac.at/RecentResults/ControlAndMeasurementE.html (group condition known - not individual but individual can be polled without destruction of group).

These tend to appear to disagree with statements about the absolute destruction of entanglement by polling and the ability to measure without loss of data.

One discusses 'reversability'.

More later

 

You made the mistake I warned you for.

No there is NO information transfered when you perform the measurement of ONE of the entangled particles. You know what the outcome COULD be of an experiment IF IT WERE to be performed far away.

This is not special knowledge. I can put a bomb in a rocket, set it to 10 year, let it cruise away at sufficiently fast speed. Then I'll know that the bomb will explode in 10 years, even if we won't see that for 15 years (because the light takes that long to travel through space or something)...

There is no problem in KNOWING things. Information transfer implies a change of frame of reference.

Also, many people are confusing the use of entanglement and quantum cryptography here. In quantum cryptography, the entangled photons are sent along the data stream. A change in these photons (___not____ through measurement!!!!!!!!) reveals that the message was decoded by a third person.

Bye!

Crisp

 

Crisp,

I understand the cryptography issue where a key must be sent seperate by snail mail.

But in my view the position of physicists today is incorrect. Claiming information can't be sent FTL simply doesn't seem to be consistant with fact.

To use an analogy suppose you send me a letter bomb by UPS. UPS delivers it and it sets on my desk for three days because I was out of town.

The fact that I haven't read the letter in no way supports the statement that the UPS didn't deliver the letter. Now when I attempt to open it and read it self destructs. Again that fact is entirely different than claiming I never received the letter bomb. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Do you get my point? Readability of FTL mesages is the issue, not sending messages FTL. Now I admit that sending such messages has no value until we learn to read them but I just find the arguement that they cannot be sent absolutely contrary to todays data.

I also understand the desire of Relativists to argue they can't be sent. But it is just a short term denial cover of the issue which I do believe will be solved and when it is - Oh, well.

 

That was not the issue.

You did not understand. Let me say it again...

NO ... INFORMATION ... IS ... TRANSFERED when you perform a measurement on an entangled particle pair. When there is nothing to transfer, you can hardly speak about FTL I think.

You seem to think that when you measure a particle at A which is entangled with a particle at B, that something happens at B. This is not the case. Nothing happens at location B when an observer destroys the entanglement at A.

If you don't believe that, fine by me. That is what quantum mechanics tells us. Period.

 

Crisp,

I'll be l;ooking further into this but what you say simply does not rign true with what others seem to be saying. If that were true then the claim of "Teleportation" of particle 'A's parameters to 'B' would not happen.

 

I understand now, Crisp. Thanks. I at first thought that by destroying photon A
that the entangled photon B would also be destroyed, instead of just destroying
the entangled state between the two. I now don't quite understand why they are said to be entangled in the first place. They take a high energy ultra-violent photon, for
instance, and make two daughter infra-red photons, the daughter photons having the same total energy as the original photon. If nothing happens between the two daughter photons when one is measured, why are they assumed to be entangled?

 

As I have indicated Crisp's statements don't appear to properly define the issue. If what he claims is true then events that have been reported i.e. - teleporting change of parameters for particle 'A' to particle 'B' doesn't happen.