Quantum entangled-photon Chinese satellite.

[juan]

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 07:11:11 +0100
oshwm <oshwm at openmailbox.org> wrote:

> would the case for no data travel require that both particles exist
> in the same space and time?
> also, if measuring a quantum object
> changes it, can you not measure twice or similar using the
> measurements to both derive its original state and return it to its
> original state?


	Going by BF's description, states don't really matter. All that
	matters is that you can do something to one of the particles
	and that action triggers a change in the other particle, a
	change that you can detect. If you can do something 'at will' to
	one particle, and then detect a change in the other particle,
	you have transmitted one bit.


> 
> (yep, now the schoolboy physicists are getting involved :D )


	Ever heard stories about naked rulers, or emperors without
	clothes?




> 
> 
> On 5 August 2016 06:58:15 BST, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 07:19:19 +0200
> >Bastiani Fortress <bastianifortress at yandex.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As i can remember, the point was when two particles are entangled,
> >> they bear the same quantum state, and they simultaneously shift
> >> their states önce either of them is "observed". 
> >
> >	OK.
> >
> >> So you know that the other
> >> twin is in the same state, but you cannot code it at will, 
> >
> >	Not sure what you mean by "code it".
> >
> >
> >> and since
> >> you don't know its first state without having "observed" it, you
> >> cannot determine whether the other twin has been observed or not
> >
> >	And now I'm even more confused =P
> >
> >	But let's go back to your first sentence. You have a couple
> >	of 'entangled' particles. Trying to measure particle 'A'
> >	triggers a change in particle 'B' - is that what you are
> >	saying? 
> >
> >	If that's the case, then you do have 'information transfer' -
> >	one bit. 
> >
> >
> >> (that would be 1 bit of data streaming).
> >> 
> >> This is what i remember from what i read years ago, please correct
> >> me if i'm wrong.
> >> 
> >>