Does quantum entanglement make faster-than-light communication possible?
What is NOT random? http://bit.ly/NOTrandoVe
First, I know this video is not easy to understand. Thank you for taking the time to attempt to understand it. I've been working on this for over six months over which time my understanding has improved. Quantum entanglement and spooky action at a distance are still debated by professors of quantum physics (I know because I discussed this topic with two of them).
Does hidden information (called hidden variables by physicists) exist? If it does, the experiment violating Bell inequalities indicates that hidden variables must update faster than light - they would be considered 'non-local'. On the other hand if you don't consider the spins before you make the measurement then you could simply say hidden variables don't exist and whenever you measure spins in the same direction you always get opposite results, which makes sense since angular momentum must be conserved in the universe.
Everyone agrees that quantum entanglement does not allow information to be transmitted faster that light. There is no action either detector operator could take to signal the other one - regardless of the choice of measurement direction, the measured spins are random with 50/50 probability of up/down.
Special thanks to:
Prof. Stephen Bartlett, University of Sydney: http://bit.ly/1xSosoJ
Prof. John Preskill, Caltech: http://bit.ly/1y8mJut
Looking Glass Universe: http://bit.ly/17zZH7l
Physics Girl: http://bit.ly/PhysGirl
MinutePhysics: http://bit.ly/MinPhys
Community Channel: http://bit.ly/CommChannel
Nigel, Helen, Luke, and Simon for comments on earlier drafts of this video.
Filmed in part by Scott Lewis: http://google.com/+scottlewis
Music by Amarante "One Last Time": http://bit.ly/VeAmarante
++++++++++++++++
n dimension stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI9uuHuc1iU&list=PL865E510770E164CB
I believe our understanding of info transfer needs to change. The data is not traveling anywhere because it appears to exist simultaneously here & there and when one changes the other does without delay. There has to be another dimension of energy / ether we need to discover that would make this make sense. Like looking into a fish pond but the fish don't see surface, only your hand dipping in water as a miraculous occurrence.
jamescampbell.usOn Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Apparently, that is true. The tantalizing thing is that SOMETHING
>> APPEARS (information, of some nature) to be transferred between one
>> particle and another, distant one, and yet there seems to be no way
>> to use that transfer to actually transmit useful FTL
> Which sounds rather absurd no?Certainly that sounds absurd! It IS absurd! Which explains a lot of the fascinationhas for entangled photons and related phenomena. Einstein never liked thequantum-mechanics idea, famously declaring "God does not play dice with theuniverse". Unfortunately for Einstein, dice are actually played.In fact, Einstein's EPR Paradox (Einstein, Podolski, Rosen) was invented byEinstein himself in an attempt to prove that quantum mechanics could notbe a complete statement of the problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox This principle said that IF quantum mechanicswere a complete statement of the problem, then something seeminglyimpossible [fill in the blank with FTL information travel] would occur. Einstein wasquite convinced that nothing (including no information) could travel faster than'c'. Amazingly, it appears that nature ("God", for the religious among you) has actedsimultaneously to protect the quantum mechanics theory, but ALSO to protectEinstein's belief that nothing could travel faster than 'c'. If anybody should discovera method to use entangled photons to effectively transmit data FTL (and thus,presumably at infinite speed) that person would surely deserve a Nobel Prize inPhysics.>Either this is ordinary EM
> phenomena that propagate at the so called speed of light, or
> it is something else which could propagate at 'faster than
> light' speed.It's at least 10,000 times 'c' the speed of light in a vacuum, according toexperiments involving fiber optics. It might be essentially infinite.
> If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then some
> information must be being transmitted. If no information is
> being transmitted, then by definition, there's no way to measure
> speed and the claim makes no sense.Well, that's the problem. Knowing that SOMETHING is being transmitted, and actuallyUSING that method to transmit useful information, are (quite strangely) two differentthings. That, also is the amazing implications of entangled photons.
Jim Bell