please suggest

[manju]

Quantum entanglement, as first explained in the EPR paper written by Einstein and his colleagues, seems to imply that a "spooky" connection exists between particles that have interacted in the past. Does this connection allow us to communicate faster than the speed of light?

[Mr Skeptic]

Nope. Even though you can change the particle at a distance, you don't control which change happens either on your side or the opposite side. However, I believe that the effect is used for sharing keys in quantum cryptography. The point being, it may be random gibberish, but at least you know what each other's random gibberish is, so you can use it as an encryption key.

[kleinwolf]

1) isn't it that : "measuring A without disturbing B" is not possible with a singlet state ? (end different from initial state)

 

I feel EPR as a psycho-analysis of behavior towards the "rules"

 

a) do you accept the rules, or refuse from the onset ?

b) to which point do you apply the rules ?

c) do you want to modify the rules ?

Edited May 24, 2009 by kleinwolf

[proton]

Quantum entanglement, as first explained in the EPR paper written by Einstein and his colleagues, seems to imply that a "spooky" connection exists between particles that have interacted in the past. Does this connection allow us to communicate faster than the speed of light?

I don't see how but I am aware of some journal articles that seem to think that question is still open. For example

 

Can EPR-correlations be used for the transmission of superluminal signals? P. Mittelstaedt, Ann. Phys (Leipzig) 7 (1998), 7-8, 710-715

Abstract. In a compound quantum system with EPR-like correlations a measurement of one subsystem induces instantaneously changes of the subsystem, irrespective of the relative distance of the two subsystems. We consider several arguments which were put forward in recent years in order to show that these nonlocal effects cannot be used for superluminal communication. It turns out that arguments mentioned above are merely plausible but not really stringent and convincing. This means that the question in the title of this paper is still open.