h a l f b a k e r yNow, More Pleasing Odor!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I know quantum entanglement works a little bit differently than people suspect, but maybe this could still be possible, and, if not, it is still a good halfbaked idea.
The example that came to my mind was a pair of rings (like the type you put on your finger), each containing a particle quantumly
entangled with the particle in the other ring, so that they are always aware of the state of the other, no matter the distance. The person at one end could push the 'jewel' and thereby change the state of the particle so that the particle at the other end changes state, which changes the color of the jewel or whatever at the other end, so that I could send signals to my girlfriend when I am bored in class.
Of course, a better idea would be to make a temperature or conductivity sensor and market them as mood rings, so that there is a display of the temperature of your own ring and of the other person's. Or maybe just of the other person's, but you can't see your own. (Yes this would require some kind of digital communication if there were more than two emotions, but whatever.) But it is kind of a similar idea to those broken heart necklaces where you each have half a heart and you can put them together when you are together. Except that they are always together even when you are apart.
Also you could use them for keeping tabs on elderly relatives, a worrying mom could have a jewel for each child so she would know that they are ok. etc. Actually now that I think of it I seem to remember some movie where people wore bracelets that showed that other people they knew were still alive or something similar. But I am using entanglement so it is unique. :-)
This idea could also be explored in lots of other directions.
Yes, I'm male and I'm talking about broken heart necklaces. Shush.
Real teleportation experiment
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/2/6
[MaxMad, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
(just wanted to say that you can't actually use entanglement to send messages..) |
|
| |
Yeah well. That's what they used to say you could do with it, in all the pop science type stuff. I didn't think that's the way it actually worked. |
|
| |
well... there might be instantaneous comunication there, but you can't use it... complicated stuff to explain.. |
|
| |
Damn, I was going to propose this very thing. |
|
| |
It's not just that you're a male and talking about broken heart necklaces, it's that you're a male named Skullhead and are talking about broken heart necklaces. |
|
| |
Yeah I ditched that name. It was a joke but I'm sure no one got it. :-) |
|
| |
I'm about to show my ignorance here, and I apologise. I thought that using quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication was impossible, because an explanation of what the state-change meant would have to be sent by another, light-speed-or-less route. However, if you've already done this, can't you then intantaneously communicate via a pre-determined code? |
|
| |