Chinese physicists measure "spooky action at a distance". At least 10.000 times the speed of light. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=lord0war;39887504]I'm going to put my quantum harmonizer in your photonic resonation chamber![/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlbmi1hhV_0[/media]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39886940]Can everybody on FP please not make claims about quantum physics when they don't actually understand it okay thanks. Quantum entanglement cannot send information faster than light.[/QUOTE] As Stephen Hawking Said "if you say you understand quantum physics you lie because nobody fully understands it". It's not the exact same wording but something along those lines.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39886940]Can everybody on FP please not make claims about quantum physics when they don't actually understand it okay thanks. Quantum entanglement cannot send information faster than light.[/QUOTE] I'm not here to make claims about anything, but I'd really like to know why. I understand that "stuff" can't surpass the speed of light, but is information "stuff" as well? Like, the way I understand (that might be a bold statement) this is that while the state of those two(?) entangled particles can change faster than the speed of light would travel the distance between them, we would not be able to observe the state of them at that speed? If that is correct, why?

[QUOTE=The Saiko;39887796]As Stephen Hawking Said "if you say you understand quantum physics you lie because nobody fully understands it". It's not the exact same wording but something along those lines.[/QUOTE] I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. - Richard Feynman

How the hell This is amazing

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39887800]I'm not here to make claims about anything, but I'd really like to know why. I understand that "stuff" can't surpass the speed of light, but is information "stuff" as well? Like, the way I understand (that might be a bold statement) this is that while the state of those two(?) entangled particles can change faster than the speed of light would travel the distance between them, we would not be able to observe the state of them at that speed? If that is correct, why?[/QUOTE] Information [I]is[/I] the "stuff" which is not allowed to travel faster than light. Things which don't contain information, such as phase velocities, can travel faster than light. In this case, imagine that Alice and Bob each have a particle in an entangled pair. Alice measures hers, and it instantly affects Bob's particle. The problem is that Bob can measure his particle, but he can't ever know whether or not he is making the first measurement or not unless he communicates with Alice via some slower-than-light method. To know whether Alice had measured her particle, Bob would have to copy the state of his particle and measure it a bunch of times, which is disallowed in quantum mechanics by a thing called the no-cloning theorem.

[QUOTE=Yahnich;39886538]but overall this is true, because the problem is that you do not know what position your particle is in until you observe it and the only way for the other person to know if you're actually sending data is for him to change it while you both are observing it because otherwise it might be a random quantum event [url]http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612[/url] this explains it more elegantly than i do[/QUOTE] So if you say "goodbye" using quantum phone, it can come out as "fuck off" in the other end?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39887934]Information [I]is[/I] the "stuff" which is not allowed to travel faster than light. Things which don't contain information, such as phase velocities, can travel faster than light. In this case, imagine that Alice and Bob each have a particle in an entangled pair. Alice measures hers, and it instantly affects Bob's particle. The problem is that Bob can measure his particle, but he can't ever know whether or not he is making the first measurement or not unless he communicates with Alice via some slower-than-light method. To know whether Alice had measured her particle, Bob would have to copy the state of his particle and measure it a bunch of times, which is disallowed in quantum mechanics by a thing called the no-cloning theorem.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if this will sound stupid, but why would you need to know if you're first to measure it? You just need a starting point and then you can see the changes of the particle and interpret them. Even if measuring changes the particle as well, Alice can ignore these changes and continue to send the message while Bob will continue to observe the changes. Also, any instant communication topic instantly reminds me of Stargate's communication stones. :v

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39887934]Information [I]is[/I] the "stuff" which is not allowed to travel faster than light. Things which don't contain information, such as phase velocities, can travel faster than light. In this case, imagine that Alice and Bob each have a particle in an entangled pair. Alice measures hers, and it instantly affects Bob's particle. The problem is that Bob can measure his particle, but he can't ever know whether or not he is making the first measurement or not unless he communicates with Alice via some slower-than-light method. To know whether Alice had measured her particle, Bob would have to copy the state of his particle and measure it a bunch of times, which is disallowed in quantum mechanics by a thing called the no-cloning theorem.[/QUOTE] So it's kinda like Schrödinger's cat or what? The particles are in a "superposition" until we measure them and compare them to the previous state? And copying is impossible since it would affect the state of either particle? I'm way over my head right now, but thanks for taking the time, at least.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39888145]I'm not sure if this will sound stupid, but why would you need to know if you're first to measure it? You just need a starting point and then you can see the changes of the particle and interpret them. Even if measuring changes the particle as well, Alice can ignore these changes and continue to send the message while Bob will continue to observe the changes. Also, any instant communication topic instantly reminds me of Stargate's communication stones. :v[/QUOTE] You can't send a message if you don't know its been measured. You'd have to set up some sort of system like, "If I've measured my particle, that's a 1, and if I haven't, that's a 0," to send bits, but there's no way to know that the particle has been measured since you'd violate the no-cloning theorem. You can't pick a particle's state when you measure, so all you have to go from are the statistics of an ensemble of identical states, but we can't really measure that.

[QUOTE=download;39886620]I don't think you have any clue about this. You can't change the quantum state of something, it just happens randomly. Doing something non-quantum to it won't be transmitted by entanglement. We need a physics major here[/QUOTE] Begin the Avon summoning ritual.

[QUOTE=The Saiko;39887796]As Stephen Hawking Said "if you say you understand quantum physics you lie because nobody fully understands it". It's not the exact same wording but something along those lines.[/QUOTE] richard feynman said that and it was true when he said it but that was decades ago and things have moved on now believe it or not quantum mechanics is not weird. quantum mechanics is perfectly normal and if you have a problem with it then you have to change.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39888259]richard feynman said that and it was true when he said it but that was decades ago and things have moved on now believe it or not quantum mechanics is not weird. quantum mechanics is perfectly normal and if you have a problem with it then you have to change.[/QUOTE] I'd say that his statement still applies as far as interpretation is concerned, but the formalism of the theory is well-understood.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39886604][I]Spooky action at a distance. [/I] Throwing around the heavyweight scientific terms here, chaps.[/QUOTE] physicists and astronomers call it as they see it. "hey that thing right there is big and black and sucks everything up! it's a black hole!" "that star is really big and red. it's a red giant" it's strange because physics often uses incredibly elegant and simple terms for very exotic and unintuitive things. however, chemistry uses incredibly complex terminology for more mundane things.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39888268]physicists and astronomers call it as they see it. "hey that thing right there is big and black and sucks everything up! it's a black hole!" "that star is really big and red. it's a red giant" it's strange because physics often uses incredibly elegant and simple terms for very exotic and unintuitive things. however, chemistry uses incredibly complex terminology for more mundane things.[/QUOTE] "Neutrino" just means "small neutral one" in Italian. I'm surprised more people haven't heard of Einstein talking about spooky action at a distance tbh.

[QUOTE=The Saiko;39887796]As Stephen Hawking Said "if you say you understand quantum physics you lie because nobody fully understands it". It's not the exact same wording but something along those lines.[/QUOTE] Niels bohr said "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39887934]Information [I]is[/I] the "stuff" which is not allowed to travel faster than light. Things which don't contain information, such as phase velocities, can travel faster than light. In this case, imagine that Alice and Bob each have a particle in an entangled pair. Alice measures hers, and it instantly affects Bob's particle. The problem is that Bob can measure his particle, but he can't ever know whether or not he is making the first measurement or not unless he communicates with Alice via some slower-than-light method. To know whether Alice had measured her particle, Bob would have to copy the state of his particle and measure it a bunch of times, which is disallowed in quantum mechanics by a thing called the no-cloning theorem.[/QUOTE] I thought the theory of communicating via quantum particles was something to do whether they measured one output or another, and you could use something to flip one's output back and forth like flicking a lightswitch, essentially communicating like morse code via telegraph. The problem posed with that was ALLEGEDLY the fact that the other end couldn't tell whether one state was a 1 or a 0 in the code (thus a chunk could read either 11010 or 00101), but that seemed like it would have a stupidly easy fix, like making a start/stop code in which it flicks a specific set code to give you a base for decryption, or just having two things process the 0's and 1's opposite of each other and see which one reads out BUT, from what I'm understanding of what you're saying, if you measure the particle it changes state? I can see where that becomes an issue, but at the same time why not continue to measure the particle on one end and observe the changes from interacting with it on the other end? to communicate two-way why not have two sets, one for input and one for out?

Take two boxes. Put an apple in one, a banana in the other. Shuffle the boxes. Take them really far apart, as far as you want. When you open a box and find out it's contents, you instantly know the contents of the other box as well. The knowledge of the fruit-state of both boxes comes in an instant but no instant transmission of classical information has taken place. This is how I've understood quantum entanglement. Don't know how accurate it is (is it?) but I can't see how it could be used to transmit information.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39888364]I thought the theory of communicating via quantum particles was something to do whether they measured one output or another, and you could use something to flip one's output back and forth like flicking a lightswitch, essentially communicating like morse code via telegraph. The problem posed with that was ALLEGEDLY the fact that the other end couldn't tell whether one state was a 1 or a 0 in the code (thus a chunk could read either 11010 or 00101), but that seemed like it would have a stupidly easy fix, like making a start/stop code in which it flicks a specific set code to give you a base for decryption, or just having two things process the 0's and 1's opposite of each other and see which one reads out BUT, from what I'm understanding of what you're saying, if you measure the particle it changes state? I can see where that becomes an issue, but at the same time why not continue to measure the particle on one end and observe the changes from interacting with it on the other end? to communicate two-way why not have two sets, one for input and one for out?[/QUOTE] Yeah, this. I mean, I understand that we obviously lack any means to actually try communicating with it, but the base concept is pretty simple, that you can communicate faster than light. Maybe we wouldn't be able to do it for another thousand or ten thousand years, but doesn't mean it's impossible because you see, someone on facepunch said you can't have information traveling above FTL speeds. There are so many things about we don't know about yet that I can't even say if we know at least one thing to be absolute truth.

[QUOTE=maqzek;39888473]Yeah, this. I mean, I understand that we obviously lack any means to actually try communicating with it, but the base concept is pretty simple, that you can communicate faster than light. Maybe we wouldn't be able to do it for another thousand or ten thousand years, but doesn't mean it's impossible because you see, someone on facepunch said you can't have information traveling above FTL speeds. There are so many things about we don't know about yet that I can't even say if we know at least one thing to be absolute truth.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand the difference between conjecturing that we'll never be able to travel faster than light, and faster than light travel creating contradictions with well-established laws of physics. Do you remember the CERN neutrino measurement? They thought they had measured faster-than-light neutrinos and it was a huge deal but lo and behold, there was an error.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39886940]Can everybody on FP please not make claims about quantum physics when they don't actually understand it okay thanks. Quantum entanglement cannot send information faster than light.[/QUOTE] I don't think you know anything at all this is quantum mechanics or as scientists call it, magic in real life. We can do literally anything now that we have a name for the previously unobservable natural phenomenon that has happened since the beginning of the universe.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39886940]Can everybody on FP please not make claims about quantum physics when they don't actually understand it okay thanks. Quantum entanglement cannot send information faster than light.[/QUOTE] But I wanted to hear the Australians funny accent in TF2...

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39888569]I don't think you know anything at all this is quantum mechanics or as scientists call it, magic in real life. We can do literally anything now that we have a name for the previously unobservable natural phenomenon that has happened since the beginning of the universe.[/QUOTE] Quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason! Also, eat plenty of oatmeal and animals never had a war: who's the real animals? [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Yahnich;39888547]although there are possible loopholes in the no communication theorem[/QUOTE] expound on this please

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39888566]I don't think you understand the difference between conjecturing that we'll never be able to travel faster than light, and faster than light travel creating contradictions with well-established laws of physics. Do you remember the CERN neutrino measurement? They thought they had measured faster-than-light neutrinos and it was a huge deal but lo and behold, there was an error.[/QUOTE] from seeing interviews with physicists most professions(i saw) didn't even think the neutrino thing was that big of a deal because they already predicted measurement errors. we know enough about superluminal travel that people saw the neutrino didn't actually display any superluminal properties when they allegedly broke the speed of light.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39888633]from seeing interviews with physicists most professions(i saw) didn't even think the neutrino thing was that big of a deal because they already predicted measurement errors. we know enough about superluminal travel that people saw the neutrino didn't actually display any superluminal properties when they allegedly broke the speed of light.[/QUOTE] True. Mostly the media ate it up and went crazy. When Michio Kaku is the voice of reason, you've probably made a measurement error.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39888569]I don't think you know anything at all this is quantum mechanics or as scientists call it, magic in real life. We can do literally anything now that we have a name for the previously unobservable natural phenomenon that has happened since the beginning of the universe.[/QUOTE] I think a physics student has some more knowledge over the general FP public.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39888618] expound on this please[/QUOTE] supposedly using quantum teleportation and entanglement could create a method that would allow the transfer of quantum data, and allow it to be translated into classical data. idk i never really saw anyone expound upon it either(certainly not someone with any authority), so i have no clue how it really works or whether it's even possible.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;39888650]I think a physics student has some more knowledge over the general FP public.[/QUOTE] The uncertainty principle means that my opinions are equally valid as everyone else's because we can never truly know~ (I've been joking the whole time, maybe I can make johnnymo explode soon)

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39888659]supposedly using quantum teleportation and entanglement could create a method that would allow the transfer of quantum data, and allow it to be translated into classical data. idk i never really saw anyone expound upon it either(certainly not someone with any authority), so i have no clue how it really works or whether it's even possible.[/QUOTE] This is why I'd like an explanation or a source. I've never seen anything imply that there might be a way around. [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;39888681](I've been joking the whole time, maybe I can make johnnymo explode soon)[/QUOTE] Doubtful, I knew you were being facetious. (Hence the Futurama quote) Maqzek might be able to manage it though

[QUOTE=maqzek;39888473]Yeah, this. I mean, I understand that we obviously lack any means to actually try communicating with it, but the base concept is pretty simple, that you can communicate faster than light. Maybe we wouldn't be able to do it for another thousand or ten thousand years, but doesn't mean it's impossible because you see, someone on facepunch said you can't have information traveling above FTL speeds. There are so many things about we don't know about yet that I can't even say if we know at least one thing to be absolute truth.[/QUOTE] God exists, no one has ever had a proof of its existence, but it doesn't matter, in a few thousands or ten thousands of years it'll be here. Because nothing is impossible. Replace God with FTL communitaion.