[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 82 KB, 350x338, 1318778049961.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3917120 No.3917120 [Reply] [Original]

Question: Say you had two communications arrays based around two quantum entangled particles, and these particles were changed between two states as a way to communicate in binary. Would that in effect be a method of FTL communication?

>> No.3917127

The particles wouldn't be entangled if you physically interacted with one to change its state.

Fuck.

>> No.3917133

Measuring the initial state would collapse the entanglement.

>> No.3917138

>implying you can change a particle's state manually

>> No.3917142
File: 482 KB, 1589x1122, 1265156940930.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3917142

>> No.3917145

>>3917127
My understanding was that if you changed one, the other particle would change with it? Say you changed the ion of an electron, the other electron would undergo the same change if they were entangled?

>> No.3917151

>>3917133
That's nuts. I know that a lot of quantum physics stuff reacts to a conscious observer, do we know why that is yet? I'm kind of a nub to this shit.

>> No.3917155

>>3917142
Good old Cambridge - quality information, shitty colours.

>> No.3917161

With two quantum entangled particles once you know the state of one you know what the state of the other must be. It's like if I give you the equation

x+y = 3.

Once you know the value of x you also know the value of y. Information cannot be transferred ftl using quantum entanglement because you can't set the value of x and y, you can just determine what value they already have.

>> No.3917164

>>3917151

It doesn't have to be a conscious observer.

It just has to be observed.

Probably because observing means bouncing photons off the object, goddamn.

>> No.3917165

>>3917145
Spins change under Quantum Entanglement. Yes quantum entanglement can communicate information faster than light. The only problem is it is impossible for anyone to observe the information without collapsing the entanglement and in effect making it so it looks like the particles were never entangled.

Quantum Observer Effect is a bitch. Nothing exists as a particle unless it is observed.

The Universe exists because it is observed. It doesn't matter that the observers showed up billions of years after the creation of the Universe. Time has no meaning in Quantum Entanglement.

>> No.3917173
File: 2 KB, 126x92, 1299814318092.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3917173

>>3917145
>ion of an electron

>> No.3917174

>>3917165
>The Universe exists because it is observed. It doesn't matter that the observers showed up billions of years after the creation of the Universe.

The mind-fuck......it hurts....

>> No.3917183

>>3917165
Damn, that's some deep shit.
That would mean consciousness (and therefore life) is a lot more important than we give it credit for, wouldn't it?

>> No.3917194

>>3917120
You cannot steer to which state a particle collapses. So even though the other party could instantly receive what the state of the particle at your side became, you can't use this property to actually encode information.

>> No.3917203 [DELETED] 

>>3917183

>> No.3917207
File: 265 KB, 938x1200, penrose.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3917207

>>3917183

Yeah mind over matter quantum consciousness teleport though FTL lightarian jews did reptilians

>> No.3917211

>>3917183
It means that this particular Universe wouldn't have existed materially unless it had 'predicted', through entanglement, the future existence of consciousness within it.

It means that the first ever conscious being in this Universe is the true reason why life exists in this Universe. Some people would call it a God. Other people might call it something else.

>> No.3917217

>>3917211
Go home Depak Chopra. Your quantum mysticism is not science.

>> No.3917222

>>3917211
>new age pseudo science
Quantum theory doesn't mean what you think it means. No serious interpretation connotes magical properties to the mind.

>> No.3917224

>>3917217
It isn't mysticism and it has nothing to do with that guy. Go back to the early 20th century if you want to reject the progress we have made on the quantum level of understanding.

I am sure you and Einstein can have a good old circle jerk about it.

>> No.3917230

>>3917224
OK bro, why don't you explain to use what an observer is in QM:

>> No.3917232

>>3917230
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

>> No.3917238

>>3917224
There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics.
If you don't say which interpretation you're using, you're talking out of your arse.
Also, only the most obscure interpretations have a need to assign special capabilities to observers/conscienceness/minds.

>> No.3917263

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk&feature=related

>> No.3917278

>>3917127

why is this thread still alive

>> No.3917286

>>3917232
The video is correct, up to point 4:35.
>"The electron is aware it is being watched."
Teh fuck?
Also:
>"The observer collapsed the wave function, simply by observing."

The main point is that on such a small level, there is no thing as 'simply observing'. By definition, you interact with the particle, and you are only capable of viewing the interaction, not the particle.
If you leave on the machine that detects particles, the particles behave the same when nobody is watching the machine, and when somebody is watching the machine.
It is, therefore, the interactions with the particles that make the particles behave strangely. Not the human mind.