It might be that civilizations that are more advanced than us, would be using Quantum Entanglement for communication. If so, it might be a better idea to try to intercept messages with a microscope, rather than with a satellite dish.-- Thrust, Mar 26 2018 quantum entanglement is 10,000 times faster than light https://newatlas.co...faster-light/26587/ [beanangel, Mar 26 2018] Berkeley's "Three Dialogues" https://www.google....7yg2Fe2J8EAyInzbhC7 [pertinax, Mar 28 2018] Ooh. (+)<grabs popcorn, gets comfy>-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Mar 26 2018 //intercept messages with a microscope// I'm not following how a microscope would help here.
It's not clear, in any event, why they'd be using quantum entanglement, except for cryptography - in which case we'd not be able to disencode it. If you were thinking that QE can be used to communicate faster than light, well, apparently it can't.
But my main question was how a microscope would help.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 26 2018 I am not sure about the name of the device which measures the spin of a particle.-- Thrust, Mar 26 2018 ^ What [Max] said.
Just expanding (or commenting) on [Max]'s contribution a little.
//apparently it can't//
Best I can figure the whole idea that it can appears to have arisen from a mismatch in the interpretation & use of the words used by those who know what they're talking about (when they talk about quantum entanglement, I'm not one) in trying to explain the phenomena to the layman.
In short, some less than Stella intelligence's (of which I am one, often) jumped on what they thought was being said (but wasn't) & got excited about something that isn't real.
//But my main question was how a microscope would help//
Because if it did work in the fashion proposed there would only be two points in space where you could intercept the message (where it was sent from or where it was received) because you have to be observing the spin of one of the particles & there's no connection that we know of (waves or anything) travelling between them that can be observed or intercepted.
If your at neither location there would be nothing to see, not with a telescope, a microscope or even a little piece of cardboard with a slit in it.
But that aside as [Max] said it can't be used to send messages anyway apparently.-- Skewed, Mar 26 2018 Except for the microscope part this is a good idea. Quantum entanglement is 10,000 times faster than light speed [link]
I think the thing to do is look for something big that is quantum entangled like a star or a pulsar that is obviously located next to a giant prism.
hark! a giant prism. It's photons can be adjusted 10,000 times faster than light! They want to talk to us!-- beanangel, Mar 26 2018 //Quantum entanglement is 10,000 times faster than light speed [link] // That statement makes no sense, and in any case it doesn't let you send data faster than light.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 26 2018 //Quantum entanglement is 10,000 times faster than light speed// //statement makes no sense//
Really? you had all the rest of what [beans] said & that was the (one) bit of it you felt an overwhelming desire to comment on, how odd :)-- Skewed, Mar 26 2018 My first thought was a monstrous array of a little pieces of cardboard with a slits in them, to maximise reception.
Thinking more on the subject, it would probably be easier to sneak a webcam into whatever facility the aliens are using to transmit from. Or to.-- not_morrison_rm, Mar 26 2018 If I understand correctly, the "many worlds" theory best explains quantum entanglement, and also makes it clear why you can't send information faster than light.
In many parallel universes, pairs of photons are generated; in each universe, the polarization of the first photon is random, but the polarization of the other is always at right angles to the first one. When you observe one photon, you decide which of the universe's you're in; and then of course when you observe the other photon it's polarized at right angles to the first one.
Analogy: in many parallel universes, a man mails one glove to Bob and the other glove to Alice, choosing at random. If Bob looks and finds he's got a left glove, he has collapsed into one universe; and in that universe, Alice must have received a right glove. No spookiness. Well, not much.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 26 2018 //Bob looks and finds he's got a left glove//
Taking aside for a moment the fact the glove is instantly incinerated (iirc?) when bob looks to see which one he has (as we can only determine which particle we have by methods that necessarily destroy it, did I get that right?).
If Bob chops the thumb off & sews it back on the other side to make a right glove Alice's glove wouldn't magically become a left glove (or does the analogy break down here?) so you can't use them to exchange signals between Alice & Bob.
Or is that wrong? doesn't really matter if it is because we can't spin the particle back & forth anyway (can we?).-- Skewed, Mar 26 2018 Actually you can, but it takes some fancy cueing, and make sure the black doesn't go in-off in the middle pocket.-- 8th of 7, Mar 26 2018 There's still the incineration issue even if you can.
Plus (from a brief Google) "It is possible to flip one particle's spin in an entangled pair but that does not effect the spin of the other" so I guess the glove analogy does hold up pretty well all the way through.
So even if performing a measurement didn't destroy the quantum coherence (as it does) we still have nothing we can use to send messages with.-- Skewed, Mar 26 2018 The incineration issue (a) isn't an issue and (b) doesn't necessarily exist anyway.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 26 2018 //(a)// //(b)//
Huh? not that it matters when flipping one doesn't flip the other, but how so, have we got some way to measure it that doesn't destroy it now?-- Skewed, Mar 26 2018 There are plenty of ways of measuring entanglement properties that either don't, or don't necessarily, "destroy" the property.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 26 2018 [mb] perhaps you will think this works:
The aliens, 10,000 light years away send a line of quantum entangled x-axis photons like . . . . . . . . . . . .
You notice it is just a line of photons. The aliens have an entangled array of photons just like it.
Then you observe them with morse code, skipping examining some of the completely, . . - .-.- .--...-.. (etc)
The aliens notice your witty initial statement after only one year.
Fortunately you noticed they send a 2d grid of photons.
:::::::
You just observe the bottom half of the grid for replies. The system does not regenerate or reuse, they just send out a fresh grid every 1 second or something. Communication 10,000 times faster than light.
Now about the detector...-- beanangel, Mar 26 2018 //perhaps you will think// but none of that has anything to do with quantum entanglement does it though so how does this relate to the "idea".-- Skewed, Mar 26 2018 [Skewed] I just edited it to make it clearer!-- beanangel, Mar 26 2018 [bean] no you didn't, it's still bollocks & not lovely bollocks either.-- Skewed, Mar 26 2018 Shoeboxes. Line many shoe box with mirrors, then fill some of them with light for a binary message, then put them on the next rocket to go into space in the direction of Alpha Centauri, so light travelling faster than light.
Do not be surprised if they come back saying "It is not a raining on Alpha Centauri Bb".-- not_morrison_rm, Mar 27 2018 //plenty of ways of measuring entanglement properties that either don't, or don't necessarily, "destroy" the property//
So is there one that won't destroy it reasonably rapidly?
Even if there's a way to observe one up to a million times before it breaks that'd still be useless (for all practical purposes) for this wouldn't it.
A million times, so a gigabyte of data at best, up to two minutes of streaming video on a mobile phone (but only if you don't "listen" when no one talks or sends). Post off one of two phones & wait a few thousand or million years for it to arrive just for a two minute chat? it's just not worth it is it.
Still a moot point of course when flipping one doesn't change the spin of the other.-- Skewed, Mar 27 2018 I can't help but think I'm missing something here... but a quick delve into "quantum for dummies" makes the subject look slightly fishier than most left-wing missives.
I can buy to an extent that "indeterminate until measured" isn't simply a tautology - as a longtime SF reader I'm used to stuff like that.
But, what does "measured" mean ? in context. Is it the interaction between sentience and phenomenon ?
And, how can you look at particle B and tell that a coallescence has taken place on particle A ?
Apologies for no pre-existing knowledge of the subject.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 28 2018 If you interpret it as being abount sentience, then you're in George Berkeley territory (see link). I rather like that neighbourhood, but it may irritate physicists - especially the more anti-religious ones.-- pertinax, Mar 28 2018 I don't interpret it at all. Sorry, I meant "intelligence" : "sentience" could be a bit of a stretch.
Oh god, is this more of that "If we don't see it, it didn't happen" crap ?-- FlyingToaster, Mar 28 2018 Meanwhile, back in the idea ... I think the story in [beany]'s link is misleading because it fails to distinguish between datum and meta-datum. If I understand this correctly (and real scientists may like to correct me), observation (by Alice or Bob) changes the binary meta-datum "does this photon have a determinate polarity?" from false to true, but it does not control the datum "which particular polarity does this photon have?". In order to communicate, you'd need to control the latter.
It's a mistake commonly made by amateurs in software, resulting in many broken spreadsheets (because Excel doesn't really know the difference between "I don't know what this is" and "I do know what this is, and it's zero").-- pertinax, Mar 28 2018 A quick google says that there's an "if blank" test. I didn't look any further to see if it works on cells defined as dedicated numeric.
The zero/missing disambiguation isn't the only member of the meta category : there's also assumed unit of measurement, verified data, out of bounds, etc.
I've had the "pleasure" of working with some of the standard consumer-grade framework programs (db3, lotus, excel) - none of them are terribly useful. Granted, I'm predisposed to active rather than passive programming.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 28 2018 // is this more of that "If we don't see it, it didn't happen" crap //
Ah yes, the so-called "Clinton Effect", often applied to embarrassing emails.-- 8th of 7, Mar 28 2018 //there's an "if blank" test//
Yes, there are various of things of that kind bolted on as afterthoughts - but they weren't baked in from the outset.-- pertinax, Mar 28 2018 If it is, maybe they are already within the patterns of structure. We should look for extropic pieces of computation, i.e., viruses?-- Inyuki, Mar 28 2018 //think I'm missing something here//
Well, myself, I've begun to think that whatever the scientists (most especially any popular TV "scientists") & the math says it may be best to just choose some other word than "entanglement" (any other word) to use in your own head when you think about this. Because in this case it doesn't really mean connected in the way most people use it, so the word just serves to confuse things.
I think that helps, but I could just be delusional.
In layman's terms (well.. mine) the two particles aren't connected, from the moment you separate them they have no effect on each other at all.
[Max] I think put it very very succinctly with his gloves analogy, go look at what he said.
What it boils down to is you have two paired particles one spin-up & one spin-down, you separate them then look at one to see which of the pair it is, whichever one you just looked at you know what the other one is (of course) because it's the other one of the pair (so far so obvious).
But then some humorous chuckle-head said, "I know, lets call it "entanglement", throw around a few phrases like "spooky action at a distance" & look a bit worried, we'll get decades of mileage out of this taking the piss, it'll be hilarious", that's my theory anyway.
//But, what does "measured" mean ?//
I think it normally means throwing the particle at a wall very very hard & then looking at the impression it made to see what it was (because the particle is too small to be seen itself so you can only measure it indirectly), this tends to destroy it.
[Max] tells me there're ways to look that don't destroy it, but I don't know what they are.. or if he's just playing tubular bells with my appendages.-- Skewed, Mar 28 2018 At a quantum level, "measure", "interact" and "change" are synonymous.
// I think that helps, but I could just be delusional //
[marked-for-tagline]-- 8th of 7, Mar 28 2018 At least this thread has some activity!-- Thrust, Mar 28 2018 Yes, but we think you'll find that every time you observe it, it changes, so that you're never sure what its status actually is - in accordance with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.-- 8th of 7, Mar 28 2018 It must have be hell to behind Heisenberg in the queue at the Cambridge University canteen..."The chicken...no...the beef...errr..." etc-- not_morrison_rm, Mar 28 2018 "Is that sliced beef ? It looks like sliced beef ... oh, no, it seems to have changed ... what is it now ? Are there vegetables... ?"
He probably starved to death, because he could decide what he wanted to eat, or when he wanted to eat it, but not both.
He'd have been better off just stuffing cats into boxes...-- 8th of 7, Mar 28 2018 The cat is neither dead nor alive... but technically edible in either circumstance.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Mar 28 2018 So you have the two photons, that are not photons because they are now this photon-photon entangled complex, that can be stretched a fair distance. If someone measures, the entanglement complex collapses. How fast does it collapse? and does each end that gains the unentangled photon back, knows it's collapsed?-- wjt, Mar 29 2018 Not even close, or this would be saying entanglement is nothing tangible and only a definition. All the big companies would be wasting their money. And also if that was true then, possibly a definition this simple could be encoded in binary bypassing all the complexity that actual happening entanglement entails.
In this analogy, there is no physical action. In reality, the forming of an entanglement is an action. It is different to two single photons. An action that generates a new state of the physicality.
I don't think there can be a macroworld example but if there was it would be like the two tickets would physically change state and become a linked together form. Maybe a giant tissue with corners spanning the ticket holders waving in the wind. Until it collapsed back into the two tickets.-- wjt, Mar 31 2018 No, not a coin, a lens.
Being a disc with a square edge, there is a tiny but non-zero probability that on a smooth, flat surface, the coin can land on its edge and stay there in a stable state.
However, a lens, with an edge that tapers to zero thickness (effectively a blade) cannot balance on that edge as even the smallest disturbance in its metastable condition will cause it to topple onto one face or the other.
Take care not to cut yourself when flipping it.-- 8th of 7, Mar 31 2018 Except that in Flatland, you can't "flip" a die.
In your world, a die can be rotated in any of three dimensions as it translates along the t axis. A Flatland die can only be rotated around its axis within the plane, because it can't rotate "through" or "outside" the plane.-- 8th of 7, Mar 31 2018 Or, and I know this might be a bit unconventional, we can just accept quantum physicists are all a bunch of tossers talking a load of useless or irrelevant (or both) bollocks in pursuit of the next grant cheque stop wasting our time listening to them & go for a pint instead.
It's just a thought, but probably leads to a more satisfying & productive evening than listening to a quantum physicist tell you with a few hundred polysyllabic words in a lot convoluted sentences carefully crafted to obscure the bottom line to the point you forget it's there or never notice it in the first place that he doesn't actually know (or at least isn't completely sure) what he's talking about.. bunch a people who throw things up & down from one hand the lot of em, accept the one in the wheelchair, he was OK, couldn't throw things up & down anyway.-- Skewed, Mar 31 2018 I get the states. One white lottery ticket spun with one black ticket making a grey entanglement. But this is the EM field, quantum foam the stuff photons are made of.
Quantum computing wants the design entanglement to collapse to an answer not to fall back to the states that were put in. Wouldn't it be like having a number and word on each lotto ball and because of how the balls are programmically dropped into the entanglement rotation, a collapse would spit them out magically with the numbers and words switched between balls. Which means the quantum realm which generated the entanglement structure has given a computational solution.-- wjt, Mar 31 2018 random, halfbakery