/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10370386
Nope.
The minute you use, say a laser, to change the state of the "transmitting" entangled particle, you decohere its quantum state by increasing its excitation. Meaning, you break that entanglement and no information is sent.

>>10370386
you need to be 18 to post here

Yeah maybe it will never prove useful to humanity. But it is still real, and it is still pretty weird. What are the current consensus theories as to what accounts for entanglement? Does it show that spacetime is one grand illusion? Every "item" in the universe is actually a different expression of the same object? What?

How do we know that entangled atoms are really "connected" VIA some faster than light phenomenon, and they're not just exact copies of each other that appear because the entropy of both atoms becomes reduced till they is only 1 possible state both atoms can appear in?

It's possible if you distribute "ration packs" of ordered entangled particules and encode information into the pattern you use to decohere them. Of course that puts a ver low limit on how maby exact bits you can send before having to get another package, but it's better than nothing.

>>10370685
In such a scenario it isn't that they are "copies" of each other, but that they are one and the same thing.

>>10370686
>encode information

>>10370394
Then it was not really entangled in the first place. It was just set at the same or similar pace.

>>10370702
If they're created in the same quantum event they're entangled, but if you interfere with one, you collapse it's wave function and decohere it.

>>10370682
It's actually pretty simple, symmetries create conserved charges, entangling particles is nothing more than creating two particles at the same time which must hold opposite charge to cancel out. You would be surprised if I told you a neutral pion decays into a photon, an electron, and a positron, would you? Wow, the electron and the positron are basically the same particle but with opposite electric charge, I bet if we measured them we'd know which one was which!

>>10370386
>can't be used to transmit information FTL
Next.

>>10370386
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Brainlet

>>10370386
It stands to reason that the medium which illuminates objects (light) can only be superseded by a medium that light inhabits. In this case, space-time or more colloquially known as gravity.

>>10370708
That would be like saying you set two watches at the same time and smashing one would decohere the other. No. Entanglement must have a way to interfere with the other. Does smashing one cause the other one to go haywire?

>>10370732
I don't think you're understanding.
You create A and B in the same event.
You send B 10,000 light-years away.
If you just measure A, B and collapse their wave functions, you see that B is the opposite of A, but no information has been transmitted.
Now, A and B are no longer entangled.

>>10370732
>>10370738
"Measuring" is the same as "attempt to transmit", the action itself causes A to decohere, and because A is decohered so is B, because even if that action itself isn't decohere B, not having a "quantum partner" would.

>>10370742
Artificial Quantum Entanglement

>>10370757
What?

>>10370386
The answer... you don't understand quantum entanglement, bitch.

>>10370698
If you could make a matrix out of the particles and map that back to a normal electrionic device it would be possible. The information woulnd't technically be encoded in your alloted amount of "bits". But you could make up a basic system for aking and responding questions, kind of like morse code.

Quantum entanglement particles only can carry information delivered through time-y axis(T-y), any attempt on adding information delivered through time-x axis would actually need time-x(T-x) to reach to reception side. Where we assume T-x is which time we can feel now, and I am talking about multi-time dimensions theory.

>>10370386
>Is faster than light communication possible?
right now it's not even theoretically possible.
humans are creative, maybe we find a way one day but it's unlikely.
finding a way to send information through a higher dimension and letting it appear somewhere else again would be a way to cheat around that problem.

>>10370708
Couldn't you literally write morse with that?

>>10370386
It's impossible even on paper right now but it needs to be done at some point in the future for the sake of real time interplanetary shitposting.

>>10371570
Nope you would still need the other person to interact with it to find out if the wave function collapsed. But if you do you won't know if you caused the collapse or if the other person did.

Quantum entanglement is impossible to transmit information.

>entangle two atoms
>leave one atom on earth
>have other atom orbit a black hole
>atoms have "aged" differently
are they still entangled?
people are saying you could send 1 bit of information by "decoding" or untangling the the atoms, but in this case that would allow for communication with the past/future

>>10371921
wouldn't the aging cause decoherence

>>10371921
It doesn't allow for communication because there is no way to know who the was the first to collapse the wave function. You'd have to communicate that fact using conventional light-speed communication.

There is no way for you to know that the other person collapsed the wave function. You also can't schedule a certain time to look at the particle because the speed at the journey and difference in small gravities will fuck up the syncing of you both.

It's impossible to transmit information faster than the speed of light. The universe has all kinds of trolling ways to show this.

>>10371921
Delayed choice experiment already has straight time travel in copenhagen interpretation. You can't possibly make it worse.

>>10370724
If it's not a communication, then how wave function knows it should collapse?

>>10371909
>implying humans colonizing space isnt the biggest meme of the past century.

>>10370386
Light doesn't have a speed.

>>10371911
For now!

>>10372452
Light does not exist

>>10370757
Brainlets are out in force today I see

>>10370725
>It stands to reason that the medium which illuminates objects (light) can only be superseded by a medium that light inhabits. In this case, space-time or more colloquially known as gravity.
Too much assumption. But if warp drive is possible yeah I guess we could send warp drones with messages saved on them

>>10370386
To this I'd answer, quantum entanglement implies the space between the two victims is not really there at all. So not technically ftl, but essentially ftl.

>>10370725
Gravity propagates at the speed of light.