toastywombel Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/813/3 http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000103000011113601000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Take a look at these links, this may lead to technology that will change the world of communication as we know it. Any thoughts?
swansont Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/813/3 http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000103000011113601000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Take a look at these links, this may lead to technology that will change the world of communication as we know it. Any thoughts? Change it in what way? My thought: the first article is horrible, and falls prey to the bugaboo of science journalism reporting on entanglement phenomena. In short, they are wrong in what they are saying. I haven't read the second. two subatomic particles can communicate nearly instantaneously merely attempting to observe a particle will alter its properties are both wrong. Basically the experiment tried to demonstrate that there isn't communication between the particles, because they confirmed if there was it would have to occur instantaneously (they put a bound on it of 10,000c). They tried to help falsify the first statement that I have highlighted above. The second statement shows that they don't understand the QM model — the states don't change, they are not determined until the measurement occurs.
toastywombel Posted November 4, 2009 Author Posted November 4, 2009 Change it in what way? My thought: the first article is horrible, and falls prey to the bugaboo of science journalism reporting on entanglement phenomena. In short, they are wrong in what they are saying. I haven't read the second. two subatomic particles can communicate nearly instantaneously merely attempting to observe a particle will alter its properties are both wrong. Basically the experiment tried to demonstrate that there isn't communication between the particles, because they confirmed if there was it would have to occur instantaneously (they put a bound on it of 10,000c). They tried to help falsify the first statement that I have highlighted above. The second statement shows that they don't understand the QM model — the states don't change, they are not determined until the measurement occurs. I think you should read the second article
swansont Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 The second article confirms that you can amplify an entangled photon in such a way that it remains in the entangled state (clone it), and this remains true even if the amplified signal has subsequent losses. Certainly interesting, because it raises the question of why the losses don't destroy the entanglement — they are interactions, but not necessarily ones that reveal the entangled state. (But what if they were?) How do you think this will change the world of communication?
foodchain Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 The second article confirms that you can amplify an entangled photon in such a way that it remains in the entangled state (clone it), and this remains true even if the amplified signal has subsequent losses. Certainly interesting, because it raises the question of why the losses don't destroy the entanglement — they are interactions, but not necessarily ones that reveal the entangled state. (But what if they were?) How do you think this will change the world of communication? So I guess that means the no cloning theorem is a no go.
toastywombel Posted November 4, 2009 Author Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) The second article confirms that you can amplify an entangled photon in such a way that it remains in the entangled state (clone it), and this remains true even if the amplified signal has subsequent losses. Certainly interesting, because it raises the question of why the losses don't destroy the entanglement — they are interactions, but not necessarily ones that reveal the entangled state. (But what if they were?) How do you think this will change the world of communication? Good post, So the fluctuations in the signal don't destroy the entanglement, but we are unable to tell if the interactions between the entangled photons are caused by our observation of the photons, or if the interactions are caused by the entanglement. I think if we can find a way to differentiate the amplitude fluctuations caused by observation as opposed to the amplitude fluctuations caused by entanglement it would really revolutionize our ability to send signals across long distances. It is important to note though that amplitude losses caused by entanglement do not happen in "real-time" as some people seem to be implying. They actually are estimated to happen around 100,000 times faster than the speed of light. Some issues with this though. If we were able to communicate by using entangled photons this means we would be able to send communications back through time, which seems very strange to me and somewhat hokey, I don't know exactly why though. The problem comes down to observing the entangled pairs, even if we could communicate this way every time one would go to check the signal the data would be lost and corrupted before it could be recorded. This is a very alien topic to me, so if there is flaws in my logic I would welcome the criticism . Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo I guess that means the no cloning theorem is a no go. I don't think so because the Uncertainty Principle still applies, but I am not sure, the question I guess is are the quantum states of the entangled photons similar or identical. However I just read the summary of the study again and it seems that it would violate the Uncertainty Principle in a way. Lol, I think I am going to read the whole pdf again. Edited November 4, 2009 by toastywombel Consecutive posts merged.
swansont Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 So I guess that means the no cloning theorem is a no go. The no-cloning theorem refers to an arbitrary, unknown state. This does not qualify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem The amplification could, for example, work for either polarization of a chosen basis, so that when an entangled photon entered the amplifier there was gain for either orientation. But the photon must have one of those two orientations — it's not in an arbitrary state (input is at 0 or 90, and so is the output; the amplification does not collapse the wave function). An arbitrary polarization would collapse into one of those two states, which means you haven't cloned the arbitrary state (i.e. the polarization of the emitted photon is at 0 or 90, but the input is at an arbitrary angle) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedGood post, So the fluctuations in the signal don't destroy the entanglement, but we are unable to tell if the interactions between the entangled photons are caused by our observation of the photons, or if the interactions are caused by the entanglement. I think if we can find a way to differentiate the amplitude fluctuations caused by observation as opposed to the amplitude fluctuations caused by entanglement it would really revolutionize our ability to send signals across long distances. It is important to note though that amplitude losses caused by entanglement do not happen in "real-time" as some people seem to be implying. They actually are estimated to happen around 100,000 times faster than the speed of light. I'm not sure where you're getting this. The factor of 100,000c was from trying to measure the two states far apart at about the same time, so that if they were signaling each other, it had to happen at L/t = vary fast speed. But no information transfer actually took place — the comparison of the data was still limited to c, so there is no possibility of superluminal communication.
walkntune Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 (edited) Science is on it's way to unveiling the God of Einstein and Spinoza! Science is well on it's way to discovering the mysteries of the mind and positive and negative energy! Ever thought of someone and they call you and you say AAAAH, I was just thinking of you! Pretty freaky! These are just my opinions though! Can't prove anything until the particles are proven! And yes the mind can get in the way of what they are observing! The only real valuable thing is intuition. Albert Einstein Edited November 5, 2009 by walkntune
Recommended Posts