Question regarding FTL "influence" in QM

[Widdekind]

According to the book Biocentrism (pp. 78ff), by Robert Lanza, by means of a continuous beam of Quantum Entangled, separated photons (emerging from a BBO crystal), the presence or absence of Interference Fringes, observed on one side of the set-up, can be instantaneously determined, by inserting / withdrawing a scrambler, from the beam on the second side of the set-up. In essence, the person on the second side plays "handsies in front of the projector screen" with their half of the split beam. Assuming that (1) such a split beam was sent to two remote locations (S & P) conventionally, at the speed of light; and, (2) that said split beam was continuously maintained, from the central source; then, (3) could not binary bits of information, be instantaneously sent, from P to S, based upon the presence / absence, of interference fringes, observed at S ??? Such a set up would allow a "central HQ" to feed a "laser umbilical" out to "soldiers" in the field, who would then be able to "cross talk", between themselves, instantaneously (in binary).

 

[swansont]

No, you can't use entanglement to communicate faster than light.

[Widdekind]

I understand, that you cannot send meaningful information on individual photons, since their behavior is random. But, what about the patterns produced by ensembles of photons ("fringes" vs. "heaps"), passing through the slits ? Measurement / observation causes Wave Function Collapse, which changes the statistical distribution of detector-screen hits to change, from "fringes mode" to "heaps mode". If so, using a conventional "carrier beam signal" (of suitably entangled photons), and assuming that the lengths of the "legs" were (sufficiently) the same, each user could cause, or cause not, the collapse of the photons' Wave Functions, switching the system from "fringes" to "heaps", which could encode information (if the carrier beam was continuously maintained, and by pre-arranged agreement). What am I missing ?

 

There are effectively three different levels of operation in a quantum measurement. The first consists of the way the measuring apparatus is set up (e.g. which components of polarization are being measured). The second level is the statistical result that is obtained after a large number of measurements have been made (e.g. how many photons emerge in each channel). The third is the result actually obtained in a particular, individual measurement. As far as this last is concerned... this is completely random & unpredictable.. As far as measurements on an individual photon pair are concerned, the results of these third-level processes are random & unpredictable, whatever the setting of the apparatus. The second-level statistical predictions are affected by first-level changes in a way that can predicted by quantum theory.

 

A.Rae. Quantum Physics, pp. 56-57.

[swansont]

It's going to depend on the specifics of the apparatus, but one problem is that it takes time to build up an unambiguous interference pattern, since you need multiple photons.

 

There is always going to be some obstacle preventing FTL communication.

[Widdekind]

What if you used a "high" intensity split-beam, of BBO-crystal correlated photons. Their polarizations are random, but correlated. This constant "carrier" signal would be sent, from some central source, out to two "talk stations", as per PP. The "talkers" each have their own polarizers & detectors. Imagine that one of the "talkers" is closer to the central source, so that the "close talker" drives the wave function collapse (WFC) process.

 

Now, if the "close talker" does not insert his polarizer, into his "feed" signal, the other, "far talker", will always get random & un-polarized light. If the "close talker" now inserts his polarizer, he causes WFC, into either H or V. The "close talker" cannot, of course, control this random & unpredictable von Neumann Type 1 WFC process. Never-the-less, by making his measurement, of H or V, the "close talker" ensures WFC, one way or the other, for the "far talker's" photons. Thus, the "far talker" is now receiving random but polarized light.

 

So, if the "far talker" always rotates his polarizer, then, in the former random-and-un-polarized case, he always gets a constant 50% thru-put. But, when he's receiving random-but-polarized light, his thru-put will cycle periodically from 0 to 100%.

 

By convention, "50% = dit" (or 0), and "0-100% = dah" (or 1), and you've got FTL Morse Code (or Binary). This system works only one way, from "close talker" (shorter leg) to "far talker" (longer leg).

 

This system would be quite cumbersome, work only one way, and require a "high" intensity "feed" or "carrier" signal, so that large ensembles of photons could be counted, continuously, to observe the statistics soundly. But, assuming the reality of WFC, and the "active" nature of Measurement in QM, I don't see where it wouldn't work, theoretically. What am I missing ?

[swansont]

 

So, if the "far talker" always rotates his polarizer, then, in the former random-and-un-polarized case, he always gets a constant 50% thru-put. But, when he's receiving random-but-polarized light, his thru-put will cycle periodically from 0 to 100%.

 

 

 

You need statistics to tell the difference between the cases.