China Communicates With Satalite In Earths Orbit Using Quantum Entanglement - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]Chinese researchers have teleported a photon from the Gobi desert to a satellite orbiting five hundred kilometres above the earth. This is achieved through quantum entanglement, a process where two particles react as one with no physical connection between them.[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-40573621/first-object-teleported-to-earth-s-orbit[/url] Video in source I also can't believe BBC's clickbait title, maybe just hooking the masses in, at least it explains itself. I think this is the first time it has been done into orbit? Considering the recent increase in distance we can do this. Still impressive. FYI, still doesn't break the speed of light.

[QUOTE=Faunze;52465121][url]http://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-40573621/first-object-teleported-to-earth-s-orbit[/url] Video in source I also can't believe BBC's clickbait title, maybe just hooking the masses in, at least it explains itself. I think this is the first time it has been done into orbit? Considering the recent increase in distance we can do this. Still impressive. FYI, still doesn't break the speed of light.[/QUOTE] And it won't ever, quantum entanglement is still bound to the constants of the universe. Information only propagates, at max, at the speed of light. I'm still cringing every time the word "teleportation" is used in these articles.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52465269]And it won't ever, quantum entanglement is still bound to the constants of the universe. Information only propagates, at max, at the speed of light. I'm still cringing every time the word "teleportation" is used in these articles.[/QUOTE] I mean, it's still technically the technical term. It just really doesn't mean what it means in fiction.

I thought communication via quantum entanglement wasn't possible? Someone here on FP explained it in a previous thread.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52465269]And it won't ever[/QUOTE] :toxx: ?

[QUOTE=joost1120;52465314]I thought communication via quantum entanglement wasn't possible? Someone here on FP explained it in a previous thread.[/QUOTE] if my garbage memory serves me right the explanation I see a bunch is, reading the received data is impossible because you have to manually observe its state to get a single bit of binary, but observing it tends to change the state (for both sides?) at that point I don't know how people even know they're properly entangled or not but hey :johnnymo1:

[QUOTE=joost1120;52465314]I thought communication via quantum entanglement wasn't possible? Someone here on FP explained it in a previous thread.[/QUOTE] As I understand it: You can't transport information between distant qbits without physical connection, but you can entangle a bunch of stuff to transfer a qbit's information to another physical qbit elsewhere. It's still slower than light, and it still requires a physical interaction of some kind. The difference to 'classic' communication is that it can send entangled states without collapsing them. [editline]13th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=dai;52465395]if my garbage memory serves me right the explanation I see a bunch is, reading the received data is impossible because you have to manually observe its state to get a single bit of binary, but observing it tends to change the state (for both sides?) at that point I don't know how people even know they're properly entangled or not but hey :johnnymo1:[/QUOTE] You send the entangled qbits to different places. You can't know which states they have, but if you read one you know that the other one has the opposite state. (Reading a qbit destroys the entanglement of that qbit though, and iinm if you entangle more than two qbits then reading one doesn't tell you what each of the others are.) There's some weirdness going on that lets you do high-density computations with entangled qbits before observing them (via manipulation and interference of the underlying wave function iinm) and makes wiretapping detectable no matter what (some statistical effects), but otherwise they don't really seem [I]that[/I] strange.

[QUOTE=dai;52465395]if my garbage memory serves me right the explanation I see a bunch is, reading the received data is impossible because you have to manually observe its state to get a single bit of binary, but observing it tends to change the state (for both sides?) at that point I don't know how people even know they're properly entangled or not but hey :johnnymo1:[/QUOTE] If you read one, you set the state for both. You weren't allowed to know what state it was in the first place so when you read it, all you get is what value it now currently is. You don't have anything to compare it to.

[QUOTE=01271;52465496]If you read one, you set the state for both. You weren't allowed to know what state it was in the first place so when you read it, all you get is what value it now currently is. You don't have anything to compare it to.[/QUOTE] Cant you put a nice explanative picture besides it

[QUOTE=Tsanummy;52465393]:toxx: ?[/QUOTE] I will take the toxx if quantum entanglement based faster than light communication is ever invented, first person to PM me gets a car, and I'll also accept a permaban. [editline]13th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=dai;52465395]if my garbage memory serves me right the explanation I see a bunch is, reading the received data is impossible because you have to manually observe its state to get a single bit of binary, but observing it tends to change the state (for both sides?) at that point I don't know how people even know they're properly entangled or not but hey :johnnymo1:[/QUOTE] I am johnnymo yes Basically, imagine a particle decays and creates two electrons with a certain property X which can have value +1 or -1, and the decay creates one of each. The particles get sent off in random directions, either left or right, at below the speed of light. Note that it's random which particle is which. Left and right don't correspond to +1 or -1, it's random. Quantum physics is weird in that the particle doesn't know which state either one is in either. It's actually both +1 and -1 at the same time, a superposition, until it's examined by a detector that examines the property and forces it to 'choose'. You only need to measure one particle to collapse the superposition of the other, an effect that occurs instantly. However note a word I used early on. It's random. You cannot control which state the particle collapses into, thus, even though the superposition is collapsed at infinite speed, it's transmitting nothing, and you cannot use it to know anything. [editline]13th July 2017[/editline] here's an image i found on google [IMG]https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/entanglement_teleportation.gif[/IMG] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("TOXX - IF if quantum entanglement based faster than light communication is ever invented THEN first person to PM me gets a car, and I'll also accept a permaban." - Bradyns))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;52465933]You cannot control which state the particle collapses into[/QUOTE] That sucks.

As people in the thread have pointed out, it doesn't allow for faster-than-light communication. A classical, slower-than-light communication channel is needed to transmit the state, but you can take a quantum state and make a perfect copy elsewhere, which is still neat. One thing that confuses pop sci articles about this is it can be used for quantum key distribution, which they briefly touch on in the audio snippet in the source. You can distribute a random secret encryption key between two parties with an entangled pair instantaneously. You don't actually [I]control[/I] what key you get though, you just know that the key you get is correlated with the key the other person gets, so if you want to actually send a message, you can do it securely, but it requires a slower-than-light channel.

Right, so from what I understand they didn't actually communicate, they just flipped a coin using quantum entanglement? No actual communication happened. This whole quantum entanglement is so abstract. The whole idea that just observing the particle's state changes everything is absurd. Sure, it makes sense that hitting the particle with photons could change it's state somehow (Disclaimer: I have no idea how quantum physics work), but even passive observation, observation in a way that doesn't act upon the particle, changes things. So it isn't like checking a tire's pressure, where you actually let out a very small portion of the air inside. Somehow just measuring the particle changes it's behaviour. Even if it doesn't actually interact with the particle.

[QUOTE=joost1120;52466154]Somehow just measuring the particle changes it's behaviour. Even if it doesn't actually interact with the particle.[/QUOTE] How do you think measuring properties of a particle is done? By making it interact with something else and looking at the results.

[QUOTE=mijyuoon;52466178]How do you think measuring properties of a particle is done? By making it interact with something else and looking at the results.[/QUOTE] That's not really the crux of the issue though. Observable quantities are undetermined even before a measurement is made.

[QUOTE=mijyuoon;52466178]How do you think measuring properties of a particle is done? By making it interact with something else and looking at the results.[/QUOTE] Well it isn't the interaction that changes the state. The particle is in a superstate, whether you interact with it or not. But if you interact in a way that you can extract information, then it counts as observation and changes the outcome. Here's an old animation that explains the double slit experiment: [video=youtube;DfPeprQ7oGc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/video] I tried to write a few explanations from what I had researched about it just now, but it's a fair bit too complex for me to decipher this late.

[QUOTE=joost1120;52466359]Well it isn't the interaction that changes the state. The particle is in a superstate, whether you interact with it or not. But if you interact in a way that you can extract information, then it counts as observation and changes the outcome. Here's an old animation that explains the double slit experiment: [video=youtube;DfPeprQ7oGc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/video] I tried to write a few explanations from what I had researched about it just now, but it's a fair bit too complex for me to decipher this late.[/QUOTE] These Dr. Quantum things are not bad as far as I can recall, but fyi they are snippets from a movie created by a cult centered around a woman who claims to be a medium for a 35,000 year old night from Atlantis. So watch out for any "consciousness is special/creates reality" magic nonsense.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52466380]These Dr. Quantum things are not bad as far as I can recall, but fyi they are snippets from a movie created by a cult centered around a woman who claims to be a medium for a 35,000 year old night from Atlantis. So watch out for any "consciousness is special/creates reality" magic nonsense.[/QUOTE] Okay, Deepak.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52466380]These Dr. Quantum things are not bad as far as I can recall, but fyi they are snippets from a movie created by a cult centered around a woman who claims to be a medium for a 35,000 year old night from Atlantis. So watch out for any "consciousness is special/creates reality" magic nonsense.[/QUOTE] Can confirm. I was sort of excited to find out that my great-aunt had a copy of this movie on DVD, at least after seeing the Dr. Quantum snippets, but was super disappointed to learn that the message the movie was trying to send was "YOU R GOD YOU JUST AM NOT KNOW YET EMOTIONS CONTROL THE WORLD~"

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52466380]a cult centered around a woman who claims to be a medium for a 35,000 year old night from Atlantis.[/QUOTE] hahaha fuckin JZ Knight, I drove past the ramtha school of enlightenment every time i drove to work. [editline]13th July 2017[/editline] never thought i'd see anything about that shit on fp

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52466940]Can confirm. I was sort of excited to find out that my great-aunt had a copy of this movie on DVD, at least after seeing the Dr. Quantum snippets, but was super disappointed to learn that the message the movie was trying to send was "YOU R GOD YOU JUST AM NOT KNOW YET EMOTIONS CONTROL THE WORLD~"[/QUOTE] I have those Dr Quantum videos to thank for getting me interested in Quantum physics, it absolutely blew my mind that ~the universe knew we were watching~. It was only until really researching the observer effect that I realized how sensational it was. However even watching scientists try to explain it. I´ve never had a solid answer as to why the act of observing, as destructive as it currently is, affects how it can be either an interference pattern, or not. I would just have thought there would be particles flying off in all directions due to collision, not changing the behavior entirely.

[QUOTE=Faunze;52467074]I have those Dr Quantum videos to thank for getting me interested in Quantum physics, it absolutely blew my mind that ~the universe knew we were watching~. It was only until really researching the observer effect that I realized how sensational it was. However even watching scientists try to explain it. I´ve never had a solid answer as to why the act of observing, as destructive as it currently is, affects how it can be either an interference pattern, or not. I would just have thought there would be particles flying off in all directions due to collision, not changing the behavior entirely.[/QUOTE] In fairness, a lot of the explanations for quantum physics just seem silly to me. Like it seems that a lot of the examples (like Schrodinger's Cat) can just as easily be interpreted as "we don't know what state something is in until we observe it", which is kind of a "no shit" thing.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52468352]Like it seems that a lot of the examples (like Schrodinger's Cat) can just as easily be interpreted as "we don't know what state something is in until we observe it", which is kind of a "no shit" thing.[/QUOTE] But that's the interesting part: they can't be interpreted like that. Quantum mechanics doesn't just say, "We don't know what <insert observable property here> of this system is until we look," the system actually does not have a definite value of the observable until measurement, when it is forced to pick one of a number of possible values based on a certain probability distribution. The sort of interpretation you describe is called a "hidden variable theory." They are actually testably different from what I described above. A local (i.e. doesn't allow FTL communication) hidden variable theory (with certain other harder to describe properties, like counterfactual definiteness) must satisfy certain inequalities, the first and most famous of which is Bell's inequality. But quantum mechanical experiments demonstrably violate these inequalities, hence quantum mechanics is not the sort of theory you describe. It cannot be a simple local hidden variable theory. There are interpretations that rescue bits of this, keeping nonlocal hidden variables (de Broglie-Bohm interpretation) or remaining local but being probabilistic (Copenhagen), and some even keep local hidden variables but throw out other nice features like counterfactual definiteness (many-worlds), but they all have certain potentially objectionable features. None of them are as simple a theory as "we just don't know what state it's in until we look."

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52468419] the system actually does not have a definite value of the observable until measurement, when it is forced to pick one of a number of possible values based on a certain probability distribution.[/QUOTE] I never claimed to understand Quantum physics (never delved into the hard nitty-gritty of it, don't have the time sadly), but this is what gets me. If you have to measure it to see what the value is, then you don't know what it is before-hand, which sounds like "we don't know until we actually look" to me. I'm sure they take all sorts of things into account while measuring and getting different results based on what they measure and how (is it a bit like trying to weigh something with a tape measure in some cases? :v: ), but it's the way people try to describe it for the layman like myself that gives off the "we just don't know until we measure it" feeling I get from them. Even the "double-slit" experiment explained by Dr. Quantum leaves me feeling like it should be obvious that measuring something at that scale will have an effect on it to some degree, because how else can you measure (observe) it without interacting with it?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52468550]I never claimed to understand Quantum physics (never delved into the hard nitty-gritty of it, don't have the time sadly), but this is what gets me. If you have to measure it to see what the value is, then you don't know what it is before-hand, which sounds like "we don't know until we actually look" to me. I'm sure they take all sorts of things into account while measuring and getting different results based on what they measure and how (is it a bit like trying to weigh something with a tape measure in some cases? :v: ), but it's the way people try to describe it for the layman like myself that gives off the "we just don't know until we measure it" feeling I get from them. Event he "double-slit" experiment explained by Dr. Quantum leaves me feeling like it should be obvious that measuring something at that scale will have an effect on it to some degree, because how else can you measure (observe) it without interacting with it?[/QUOTE] Well of course we don't know before we measure, but my above post is saying that if you think that's why people say quantum mechanics is weird, you are demonstrably, physically missing the point for reasons I just explained. For instance, the weird part of the double slit experiment doesn't even require observing the particle and changing its behavior, at least until it hits the screen. You can fire [I]single photons[/I] in sequence through a double slit and observe an interference pattern. So even though a single photon displays a definite position and looks sort of classical when it hits the screen, when it's traveling, it can go through both slits and interfere with itself.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52468570]Well of course we don't know before we measure, but my above post is saying that if you think that's why people say quantum mechanics is weird, you are demonstrably, physically missing the point for reasons I just explained. For instance, the weird part of the double slit experiment doesn't even require observing the particle and changing its behavior, at least until it hits the screen. You can fire [I]single photons[/I] in sequence through a double slit and observe an interference pattern. So even though a single photon displays a definite position and looks sort of classical when it hits the screen, when it's traveling, it can go through both slits and interfere with itself.[/QUOTE] Like I said, I never claimed to understand it, just that many of the explanations people give as to why it's weird don't make any sense, even given the pretext that "quantum physics is weird". And the thing with the double-slit is, IIRC, once they tried to observe (measure) what was happening, the photons "behaved" differently, as though the means of measurement requiring some method of interacting with the photons in order to measure them changed their properties. (which again, no shit) But then, as I've said many times already, I'm not educated in this, so my confusion stems purely from ignorance regarding the matter. I'm not saying it's bull-honkey, I'm just saying that I personally don't get it according to the explanations given to me.

Fuck quantum physics. Why couldn't it be simple Newtonian physics? FYI Quantum physics is why I stopped pursuing a physics degree.

Is my prediction coming true? [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1556487&p=51954049&viewfull=1#post51954049[/url]

[QUOTE=Timof2009;52469028]Is my prediction coming true? [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1556487&p=51954049&viewfull=1#post51954049[/url][/QUOTE] Well no since that's not how quantum entanglement works.

[QUOTE=joost1120;52469042]Well no since that's not how quantum entanglement works.[/QUOTE] I am still hoping!