Quantum Entanglement Solar Flare Detection and Transmission

[Popcorn Sutton]

No I understand what you guys are saying. What you're saying is that you have 2 identical particles and you make one spin, and the other spins in the opposite direction, so therefor there is entanglement. But because the action itself does not modify the particle, there can be no information transfer, right?

[imatfaal]

No I understand what you guys are saying. What you're saying is that you have 2 identical particles and you make one spin, and the other spins in the opposite direction, so therefor there is entanglement. But because the action itself does not modify the particle, there can be no information transfer, right?

 

Entanglement is more than just creating particles with opposite spins - entanglement is more complex and refers to two particles which share a joint state which must be described with reference to both particles. Entanglement can be shown to transfer quantum information over and above that of a classical method BUT this transfer is due to the passing between parties of a classical bit and thus it is limited to the speed of light. Information cannot be passed at a speed greater than that of light.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I hate to ask for the clarification but i think that the quantum mind hypothesis relies on this heavily. So what your saying is that particle a and particle b are the same particle, but they are suspended in superposition. Making particle a spin DOES NOT make particle b spin in the opposite direction simultaneously?

 

I have a feeling that that is why you are referring to its classicality.

 

I do have a proposal, but it relies on instantaneous interaction being true.

[swansont]

I hate to ask for the clarification but i think that the quantum mind hypothesis relies on this heavily. So what your saying is that particle a and particle b are the same particle, but they are suspended in superposition. Making particle a spin DOES NOT make particle b spin in the opposite direction simultaneously?

 

I have a feeling that that is why you are referring to its classicality.

 

I do have a proposal, but it relies on instantaneous interaction being true.

 

In this example the spins are opposite, but you don't know what the spin values are until one is measured, somewhat similar to flipping a coin — once you see whether you have heads or tails, you immediately know what's on the other side of the coin.

 

Quantum mind anything is mumbo-jumbo (and has nothing to do with detecting solar flares)

[Popcorn Sutton]

Thanks for the example, it really helped to clarify.

 

Here is a thought experiment that can demonstrate the ability to make predictions if you agree with it. Say that we make two particles which are separated from here to the sun spin in opposite directions because they are entangled. Say that the one we spin has no observable resistance due to its own surroundings, but it does have resistance due to it's entangled particles surroundings. Can't we measure that resistance and make conclusions about the entangled particles environment? That is technically information transfer even though the particles are not modified.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Addictive Science]

Have a Feeling I will need to try and draw a crude diagram of the concept.

[Strange]

Thanks for the example, it really helped to clarify.

 

Here is a thought experiment that can demonstrate the ability to make predictions if you agree with it. Say that we make two particles which are separated from here to the sun spin in opposite directions because they are entangled. Say that the one we spin has no observable resistance due to its own surroundings, but it does have resistance due to it's entangled particles surroundings. Can't we measure that resistance and make conclusions about the entangled particles environment? That is technically information transfer even though the particles are not modified.

 

This is spin as an intrinsic quantum property. There is no resistance to it; it is not mechanical rotation.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. I'm saying that this particle that is at the end of my probe is suspended freely in a vacuum, it's entangled particle is part of a molecule and is therefor mechanical. I observe the slightest bit of resistance on my end when I poke or spin the particle, therefor I can conclude that the entangled particle is subject to friction. No?

Edited December 31, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Strange]

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. I'm saying that this particle that is at the end of my probe is suspended freely in a vacuum, it's entangled particle is part of a molecule and is therefor mechanical. I observe the slightest bit of resistance on my end when I poke or spin the particle, therefor I can conclude that the entangled particle is subject to friction. No?

 

No. Spin is not the same as a particle rotating about its axis; so there is no resistance. Quantum spin is quantised so it always has specific values (e.g. + or -1, up or down); that means there can be no resistance because it cannot "slow down".

 

All you can do is measure spin up or down and compare that to the other one of the entangled pair. You will find that these are correlated. But you can only determine that correlation after you transmit (at no more than light speed) the measurement from one person to the other.

[swansont]

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. I'm saying that this particle that is at the end of my probe is suspended freely in a vacuum, it's entangled particle is part of a molecule and is therefor mechanical. I observe the slightest bit of resistance on my end when I poke or spin the particle, therefor I can conclude that the entangled particle is subject to friction. No?

 

No. If there were some spin-dependent interaction present then it breaks the entanglement. All you can do here is measure the spin and know what the spin of the other particle is. "Poking" it in some other way only tells you what happens when you "poke" the particle.

[Popcorn Sutton]

So basically the cat is still both dead and alive even if you observe it's doppelgänger die? I understand what you're saying but it sounds like a problem of verification rather than specification. In this case, we would need experimentation and verification to support the hypothesis, but I don't think it is necessary to be able to use this method (unless my first sentence is true). From what I know, the evidence already supports knowing the result of the entanglement even if we only have the one bit to look at. We wouldn't need to communicate the results faster than the speed of light if we predicted a solar flare faster than the speed of light (before the actual flare itself reached the earth).

 

I have a speculation here but I'll save it for another time.

[swansont]

I don't understand your argument; it seems circular. There is no way for the entanglement to communicate anything faster than the speed of light, so there is no way to predict the flare faster than c.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I guess that my question is, since the particles are entangled, are they also affected by their environment? If yes, are they both affected simultaneously? If you poke one, will the other move as well? If no, then death to the method I am trying to explain.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Strange]

I guess that my question is, since the particles are entangled, are they also affected by their environment? If yes, are they both affected simultaneously? If you poke one, will the other move as well? If no, then death to the method I am trying to explain.

 

No one is not affected by changes made to the other. All entanglement means is that if your measure some attribute of one of them, you know what someone measuring the same (or a related value) will measure for the other.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Well, regardless, I think I can do you guys the liberty of explaining what I was getting at.

 

Say that the sun produces n photons which are all identical. You travel around the sun for n years collecting more photons for a bigger data sample. If you measure a slight variation in the equilibrium of your data set, and it is likely that an outside force acted upon the photons. By measuring the simultaneity of the fluctuation in equilibrium, we can assume that the fluctuation is either quantum in nature, or classical, measured by simultaneity. If it appears to be simultaneous, then based on the assumption that the sun also contains a doppelgänger of our test set, we can conclude that something is occurring at the sun. If we get enough data, we can classify it and use pattern detection to correlate the disturbance with a solar flare.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Addictive Science]

I drew a VERY VERY rough sketch of what I had in mind when I was thinking of how this would all go down. I may be way off on the methodology of how entangled particles communicate. So you can tell me if I'm way off or see if you can find a way that this could work instead of giving me a science lecture(Unless it's a really good one). The only Information that is being communicated from the trigger to the receiver is the actual spin of the particle. Nothing else needs to be known. The computer on earth will see that one of the sets of entangled particles has taken a definite spin either up or down, triggering the earth based computer that will then set off an alarm to the technician saying something set off one of the solar flare detectors on board the prob. The solar flare detectors on the probe when triggered, only sets off one of set of particles to be observed(destroyed). So One Solar flare detector - To one entanglement trigger - To one entangled receiver on earth - To one Earth based detector - To one earth based alarm computer.

[swansont]

The computer on earth will see that one of the sets of entangled particles has taken a definite spin either up or down

 

How does this happen?

[Addictive Science]

 

How does this happen?

 

When The Trigger "opens the box" the entangled particles will take one of their definite states On the probe and one on earth. The computer program will always be running to detect when something has happened to the entangled states of one of the sets of entangled particles. So if it detects No(#0) changes 100% of the time when running then no alarm will go off. If It Detects a particle change of an up or down(dose not matter which one) then an alarm will be triggered telling the computer something has happened to one of the Solar flare detectors because it has tripped a switch to "open it's box".

Edited December 31, 2013 by Addictive Science

[swansont]

 

When The Trigger "opens the box" the entangled particles will take one of their definite states On the probe and one on earth. The computer program will always be running to detect when something has happened to the entangled states of one of the sets of entangled particles. So if it detects No(#0) changes 100% of the time when running then no alarm will go off. If It Detects a particle change of an up or down(dose not matter which one) then an alarm will be triggered telling the computer something has happened to one of the Solar flare detectors because it has tripped a switch to "open it's box".

 

You can't tell if "something has happened to the entangled states". To see what state it's in you have to measure it, and then it's not entangled anymore.

[Strange]

Also, measuring one photon does not change the other. It just tells you what state the other is in.

[Addictive Science]

Also, measuring one photon does not change the other. It just tells you what state the other is in.

Is there a way to induce the the probe trigger to make the photon change/choose a state in order to single a change into the earth based detector?

Edited December 31, 2013 by Addictive Science

[swansont]

Is there a way to induce the the probe trigger to make the photon change/choose a state in order to single a change into the earth based detector?

 

You can measure the state of one, and that will force the other one into a single state. The problem is you can't know this has happened until the other observer informs you of his/her measurement, which happens (at best) at c.

[Addictive Science]

 

You can measure the state of one, and that will force the other one into a single state. The problem is you can't know this has happened until the other observer informs you of his/her measurement, which happens (at best) at c.

Humm... in this case, Would the computer program that is interpreting the state of the photons spin become the observer ? or is the instrument that detects the photons spin the observer? ...is the scientist the Observer?; who is observing though an instrument which is projecting an image from what the detector can transmit.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Addictive Science

[swansont]

Whatever is doing the measurement is the observer. You can only detect the state of the particle once. After that, the entanglement is broken.

[imatfaal]

Humm... in this case, Would the computer program that is interpreting the state of the photons spin become the observer ? or is the instrument that detects the photons spin the observer? ...is the scientist the Observer?; who is observing though an instrument which is projecting an image from what the detector can transmit.

 

Any interaction which can alter, interact with, measure, or be altered by the state of the entangled particle.

 

Suffice to say - again, but it bears repeating - you cannot transfer any information of any sort faster than the speed of light. There are no methods, tricks, subtle sleights of hand etc which allow this. Entanglement is complex, can be seen as non-local, is completely counter-intuitive, and could lead to great advances in science and technology; but it cannot and does not allow superluminal transmission of information.