geordief Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 (wasn't sure in which sub forum to put this one) I have been trying to follow (some of) the ongoing entanglement topic and this has occurred to me. Suppose there was a way to look for entangled particles (coming from deep space) that showed a pattern indicating that they were created deliberately ,could that be an indication someone was sending a message from the location of the "twins" of the particles we had just encountered ? Could we answer by locating the source of the signalling and then finding a source of entangled particles midway between us and them and encoding them?(they would reach us and our interlocutors at the same time) .......In theory (if the technology advanced to make it a practical proposition) We would be effectively setting up a walkie talkie system between the past and the present ,so we might have to stand well clear!!! Have there been other attempts(in theory) to do this? (I know that no signal can be sent directly from one location to the other by "conventional" means. Even if this worked for a distance of 1 light milli milli milli milli second it would show the potential for inter civilization communication....so has it been definitively shown that this cannot happen (obviously we can never prove a negative -if I got that right)
MigL Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 You 'look for' particles by detecting, or interacting with, them. You have, then, detrmined the state of its entangled partner; wherever it might be. ( although momentum conservation laws would give an indication of directio of travel ) But, once detectedd, how would you even know you are dealing with a member of an entangled pair ?
Lorentz Jr Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 (edited) 48 minutes ago, geordief said: Suppose there was a way to look for entangled particles (coming from deep space) that showed a pattern indicating that they were created deliberately ,could that be an indication someone was sending a message from the location of the "twins" of the particles we had just encountered ? Have there been other attempts(in theory) to do this? What kind of source generated a signal and how long the signal took to reach Earth are different questions. Specifically identifying entangled particles is very, very speculative. I don't think anyone has searched for anything like that, although I suppose you could ask the people at SETI.... Using entanglement is also speculative. It's forbidden by relativity, and even quantum mechanics doesn't allow incoherent systems to violate that rule. Faster-than-light communication would require (a) that entanglement does indeed involve such communication between particles (which is still a controversial subject), and (b) that there's an as-yet-unkown way to get around the rules. The short answer is no, no one has the slightest idea of whether or how that could possibly be done. Edited November 18, 2022 by Lorentz Jr
geordief Posted November 18, 2022 Author Posted November 18, 2022 (edited) 46 minutes ago, MigL said: You 'look for' particles by detecting, or interacting with, them. You have, then, detrmined the state of its entangled partner; wherever it might be. ( although momentum conservation laws would give an indication of directio of travel ) But, once detectedd, how would you even know you are dealing with a member of an entangled pair ? If there was an encoded message in the (stream of) particles that said anything at all (esp "hi,my name is hjuigr. I am your entanglement partner .How can I help you?") it might be an indication that there was a (stream of) particles out there with an encoder tapping away. I mean the message could be anything but it could be some kind of a language primer ) Quite apart from the specific nature of this OP I am trying to understand the topic of entanglement on the round. I wonder whether what I understand to be the random nature of the result of any interaction would act to prevent any such "stream" or encoding to be established in the first place? I mean ,yes, I imagine anyone could encode a message using a stream of entangled particles but would the message be irredemably lost because of the random nature of the phenomenon (I am fishing for replies.Even as OP I am not qualified to suggest an opinion Edited November 18, 2022 by geordief
swansont Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 2 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said: Using entanglement is also speculative. It's forbidden by relativity No, it’s not. If you wish to discuss it, open your own thread on entanglement, so your misconceptions can be addressed. 3 hours ago, geordief said: Suppose there was a way to look for entangled particles (coming from deep space) that showed a pattern indicating that they were created deliberately ,could that be an indication someone was sending a message from the location of the "twins" of the particles we had just encountered ? Entangled particles are in undetermined states until detected, so how is anything “encoded”?
geordief Posted November 18, 2022 Author Posted November 18, 2022 20 minutes ago, swansont said: No, it’s not. If you wish to discuss it, open your own thread on entanglement, so your misconceptions can be addressed. Entangled particles are in undetermined states until detected, so how is anything “encoded”? I was imagining that the time intervals btw particles could be encoded.(or similar methods) It would be enough to know that a stream of entangled particles was "incoming" and that something about the stream was ordered in some way. If there was a way of knowing that a group of particles had been entangled then we might be able to read off the order in which they had been entangled. The individual readouts could be irrelevant.
joigus Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 If you sit at one place and take spin measurements on a particle (say a photon,) being completely clueless about whether that particle comes from an entangled pair, or triplet, etc., you wouldn't know. There's hardly anything you would be able to say about other parts of the universe it's just disentangled from. One particle is... well, one particle. You measure its spin --after that, it becomes disentangled from whatever it was entangled with before --as @MigL said. Suppose it gives +1 in the direction you set your polariser at. What can you say from that? Practically nothing. +1: That's all your information. Just one piece of data from a measurement doesn't tell you anything much about where it came from. If you take care not to do anything that changes the spin, it will produce +1 again and again. So, sure, you can say something about this photon now. If, OTOH, you measure spins for a stream of particles all identically prepared in the same entangled state, you would see a sequence now. It could go like: +1, +1, -1, +1, -1, +1, -1, -1, -1, +1, +1, -1, +1, +1... So what? What can you tell from that? You can call upon Zeilinger himself, if you wish, to interpret your data. You can tell nothing from that. Not yet. It's just a random sequence of binary code. But, if you can arrange to communicate --by the usual, sub-luminal channels-- with someone far away in the Andromeda galaxy measuring the partner particles making up the identically-entangled pairs, now, and not before, you would be able to tell something, if you're lucky. If you both have chosen the same polarisation direction for your respective polarisers, you would find something funny: They're exactly anti-correlated each and every time. When your particle reads "+1", the other one reads "-1", and viceversa. But if you set your polarisers in a non-parallel way, there's not even the slightest amount of correlation. That's a big wow! on my part. It's strange, weird, seems magic --if you don't understand QM. But still doesn't allow you to send any signals in and of itself. As I said in the other thread, concerning quantum teleportation: Quote but to complete the quantum teleportation, classical information needs to be sent from sender to receiver. Because classical information needs to be sent, quantum teleportation cannot occur faster than the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation However, and most importantly, even if, after having gone through all that trouble, you find the perfect anti-correlation, your local stream of data (the sequence of +1, +1, -1, +1, -1, +1, -1, -1, -1, +1, +1, -1, +1, +1..., etc.) is still a random, nonsense, totally-garbage noise of +1's and -1's. What do you wanna do with that for the purposes of communication? See my point? Do you want to communicate with the Andromeda galaxy with photon spins somehow coding a message? Fine. Here's one particular way you could go about doing that. You take a sufficient power of 2, eg, 27=128 You can code 128 characters with this. More than enough for all to represent the different characters in the English language, lower case and capitals, plus Arabic numerals, spaces, punctuation, and a bunch of special symbols. It could go like, Space -> 0000000 Dot -> 0000001 a -> 0000010 etc. Now you can prepare your photons to "mean something." It would --it would have to-- look like a pre-determined, precise sequence of zeros and ones. Importantly, you have to filter the sequence so that each photon is +1 (stand-in for 1) or -1 (stand-in for 0) to be precisely at the place it has to be to constitute your message. I think the idea is clear enough at this point. You can't do that with the output of an entangled state. A random string of 0's and 1's is not a message. And it's not, no matter what direction you set your polarisers in. Sending a random sequence is not a message, no matter how non-classically structured these strings of noise are. Even though they are. All my previous comments go without even starting to consider the problem of keeping quantum coherence through interstellar space all the way from here to the Andromeda galaxy, with interstellar dust, asteroid rings, cosmic rays knocking off my photons, etc. I don't envy the engineer whose task was to guarantee something like that.
geordief Posted November 18, 2022 Author Posted November 18, 2022 2 hours ago, joigus said: If you sit at one place and take spin measurements on a particle (say a photon,) being completely clueless about whether that particle comes from an entangled pair, or triplet, etc., you wouldn't know. There's hardly anything you would be able to say about other parts of the universe it's just disentangled from. One particle is... well, one particle. You measure its spin --after that, it becomes disentangled from whatever it was entangled with before --as @MigL said. Suppose it gives +1 in the direction you set your polariser at. What can you say from that? Practically nothing. +1: That's all your information. Just one piece of data from a measurement doesn't tell you anything much about where it came from. If you take care not to do anything that changes the spin, it will produce +1 again and again. So, sure, you can say something about this photon now. If, OTOH, you measure spins for a stream of particles all identically prepared in the same entangled state, you would see a sequence now. It could go like: +1, +1, -1, +1, -1, +1, -1, -1, -1, +1, +1, -1, +1, +1... So what? What can you tell from that? You can call upon Zeilinger himself, if you wish, to interpret your data. You can tell nothing from that. Not yet. It's just a random sequence of binary code. But, if you can arrange to communicate --by the usual, sub-luminal channels-- with someone far away in the Andromeda galaxy measuring the partner particles making up the identically-entangled pairs, now, and not before, you would be able to tell something, if you're lucky. If you both have chosen the same polarisation direction for your respective polarisers, you would find something funny: They're exactly anti-correlated each and every time. When your particle reads "+1", the other one reads "-1", and viceversa. But if you set your polarisers in a non-parallel way, there's not even the slightest amount of correlation. That's a big wow! on my part. It's strange, weird, seems magic --if you don't understand QM. But still doesn't allow you to send any signals in and of itself. As I said in the other thread, concerning quantum teleportation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation However, and most importantly, even if, after having gone through all that trouble, you find the perfect anti-correlation, your local stream of data (the sequence of +1, +1, -1, +1, -1, +1, -1, -1, -1, +1, +1, -1, +1, +1..., etc.) is still a random, nonsense, totally-garbage noise of +1's and -1's. What do you wanna do with that for the purposes of communication? See my point? Do you want to communicate with the Andromeda galaxy with photon spins somehow coding a message? Fine. Here's one particular way you could go about doing that. You take a sufficient power of 2, eg, 27=128 You can code 128 characters with this. More than enough for all to represent the different characters in the English language, lower case and capitals, plus Arabic numerals, spaces, punctuation, and a bunch of special symbols. It could go like, Space -> 0000000 Dot -> 0000001 a -> 0000010 etc. Now you can prepare your photons to "mean something." It would --it would have to-- look like a pre-determined, precise sequence of zeros and ones. Importantly, you have to filter the sequence so that each photon is +1 (stand-in for 1) or -1 (stand-in for 0) to be precisely at the place it has to be to constitute your message. I think the idea is clear enough at this point. You can't do that with the output of an entangled state. A random string of 0's and 1's is not a message. And it's not, no matter what direction you set your polarisers in. Sending a random sequence is not a message, no matter how non-classically structured these strings of noise are. Even though they are. All my previous comments go without even starting to consider the problem of keeping quantum coherence through interstellar space all the way from here to the Andromeda galaxy, with interstellar dust, asteroid rings, cosmic rays knocking off my photons, etc. I don't envy the engineer whose task was to guarantee something like that. So the sender cannot ensure the the particles are what he or she intends without breaking the entanglement? Is that the crux? They must be random for him to send them and so the best that can be arrived at is a mirror image of a random stream? But what about spacing the time intervals btw the pulses? Would that be information that the sender could control which would not be random but intended?
joigus Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 9 minutes ago, geordief said: So the sender cannot ensure the the particles are what he or she intends without breaking the entanglement? Exactly. If you measure a particle's spin along a particular direction, that spin is no longer entangled to any other spin in the universe. You have just set up a qubit to 0 or 1, as people in quantum computing say. 32 minutes ago, geordief said: But what about spacing the time intervals btw the pulses? Would that be information that the sender could control which would not be random but intended? Well, sure, of course. You could also send electrons and positrons, one after the other. Or whatever other code, or use the frequencies and positions, like we do for a TV set. But then it's not information contained in the spin. It's in other variables. And they would be subject to subluminal speed limits and causality. Like anything else. Is that helpful?
geordief Posted November 18, 2022 Author Posted November 18, 2022 34 minutes ago, joigus said: Well, sure, of course. You could also send electrons and positrons, one after the other. Or whatever other code, or use the frequencies and positions, like we do for a TV set. But then it's not information contained in the spin. It's in other variables. And they would be subject to subluminal speed limits and causality. Like anything else. Is that helpful? Yes,thanks. I didn't think of that.
Endy0816 Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 Yeah, Entanglement is great for security and gives an extra state to work with but provides nothing additional for transmission speed.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now