On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the
particles .

It doesn't "must" exist.

The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the
engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue.

Measuring the state of either particle
determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the
receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer
info usefully.

One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use
his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off.

The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million
particles?

The use of the words 'change' follows from a quote above, namely
"...Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other
member of the pair". So, something has changed, and it is measurable.
Perhaps the PP could expand on this.

A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly?

You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his
explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect
(whatever it is) to transfer information.

When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available.

--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln

On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the
particles .

It doesn't "must" exist.

The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the
engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue.

Stating a fact does not make it true. There is no principle that
requires this to make instantaneous comms possible. Just the opposite,
although the principle it would break is not inherent in any other set
of rules. It is a conclusion drawn on the basis of our present
understanding of the universe.


Measuring the state of either particle
determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the
receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer
info usefully.

One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use
his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off.

Got any ideas on what the other lard factor would be? No one else can
figure it out. Maybe we should reanimate Hertz and ask him. Maybe not.
I think QM would blow his mind and he might go zombie on us.


The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million
particles?

The use of the words 'change' follows from a quote above, namely
"...Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other
member of the pair". So, something has changed, and it is measurable.
Perhaps the PP could expand on this.

That's the problem, it *isn't* measurable. The change is that the state
has resolved, not changed in the sense that a spin flips state from
before and after.

Try reading up on how the experiments are done and what is going on. It
is pretty clear you don't understand.


A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Exactly, what is the change that takes place?


Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly?

You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his
explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect
(whatever it is) to transfer information.

When you find out please continue the discussion.


When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available.

Uh, yeah...

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the
particles .

It doesn't "must" exist.

The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the
engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue.

Stating a fact does not make it true. There is no principle that
requires this to make instantaneous comms possible. Just the opposite,
although the principle it would break is not inherent in any other set of
rules. It is a conclusion drawn on the basis of our present understanding of the universe.


Measuring the state of either particle
determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the
receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer
info usefully.

One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use
his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off.

Got any ideas on what the other lard factor would be? No one else can
figure it out. Maybe we should reanimate Hertz and ask him. Maybe not.
I think QM would blow his mind and he might go zombie on us.


The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million
particles?

The use of the words 'change' follows from a quote above, namely
"...Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other
member of the pair". So, something has changed, and it is measurable.
Perhaps the PP could expand on this.

That's the problem, it *isn't* measurable. The change is that the state
has resolved, not changed in the sense that a spin flips state from before and after.

Try reading up on how the experiments are done and what is going on. It
is pretty clear you don't understand.


A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Exactly, what is the change that takes place?


Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly?

You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his
explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect
(whatever it is) to transfer information.

When you find out please continue the discussion.


When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available.

Uh, yeah...

Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
snip

When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available.

Uh, yeah...

Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum.

This is an interesting discussion for some of us; if you can't
contribute, could you kindly keep your mouth shut?

--
Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
snip
When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it
is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?
Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available.
Uh, yeah...
Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum.
This is an interesting discussion for some of us; if you can't
contribute, could you kindly keep your mouth shut?

+1

Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
snip

When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available.

Uh, yeah...

Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum.

This is an interesting discussion for some of us; if you can't
contribute, could you kindly keep your mouth shut?

The observation that Spike has, yet again, waded into a topic on which he
is clearly way out of his depth and that he is, as per, simply trying to
pontificate himself out of trouble is a perfectly valid contribution to the
discussion.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

In article ,
Spike wrote:

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the
particles .

It doesn't "must" exist.

The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the
engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue.

I think that if you study how entanglement and quantum particles
actually work, you'll understand that this is *not* the case.

A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Here's a good video-and-animations explanation of the entanglement,
how we know it exists, and why it cannot be used to transmit
classical information faster than the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

To sum it up: it's clearly measurable, but in order to show that it's
happening at all, you need to *compare* two sets of measurements - one
taken at each end of the experiment.

You cannot "see" the effect by looking only at the measurements taken
at one end of the experiment. Due to the nature of quantum mechanics,
the measurements taken at one end look entirely random.

The measurements you take at the other end of the experiment look
equally random, at the time that you take them.

It's only when you compare the two sets of measurements, that you can
see that they're "random, but opposite". And, you can't compare them
without sending one set of measurements to the other end of the
experiment... and this can't be done faster than lightspeed.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly?

You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his
explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect
(whatever it is) to transfer information.

See the video I posted, above, for a pretty good explanation of what
the effect is, and why it doesn't help us send messages faster than C.

On 9/16/2015 12:38 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Spike wrote:

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the
particles .

It doesn't "must" exist.

The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the
engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue.

I think that if you study how entanglement and quantum particles
actually work, you'll understand that this is *not* the case.

A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Here's a good video-and-animations explanation of the entanglement,
how we know it exists, and why it cannot be used to transmit
classical information faster than the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

To sum it up: it's clearly measurable, but in order to show that it's
happening at all, you need to *compare* two sets of measurements - one
taken at each end of the experiment.

You cannot "see" the effect by looking only at the measurements taken
at one end of the experiment. Due to the nature of quantum mechanics,
the measurements taken at one end look entirely random.

The measurements you take at the other end of the experiment look
equally random, at the time that you take them.

It's only when you compare the two sets of measurements, that you can
see that they're "random, but opposite". And, you can't compare them
without sending one set of measurements to the other end of the
experiment... and this can't be done faster than lightspeed.

Good explanation. The point taken away from this is that the principle
of "spooky action at a distance" doesn't violate any laws we currently
hold to be true, partly because of the simultaneity issue. The speed of
light also sets a limit to how well you can establish the precedence of
events. The concept of simultaneous becomes "fuzzy" as limited by the
distance separating the two events. In some situations it becomes
impossible to say which of the two observations were first and so
clearly information can not be conveyed since the direction would depend
on which event was first.

--

Rick

On 16/09/2015 17:38, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Spike wrote:

A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Here's a good video-and-animations explanation of the entanglement,
how we know it exists, and why it cannot be used to transmit
classical information faster than the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

To sum it up: it's clearly measurable, but in order to show that it's
happening at all, you need to *compare* two sets of measurements - one
taken at each end of the experiment.

You cannot "see" the effect by looking only at the measurements taken
at one end of the experiment. Due to the nature of quantum mechanics,
the measurements taken at one end look entirely random.

The measurements you take at the other end of the experiment look
equally random, at the time that you take them.

It's only when you compare the two sets of measurements, that you can
see that they're "random, but opposite". And, you can't compare them
without sending one set of measurements to the other end of the
experiment... and this can't be done faster than lightspeed.

Thanks for the video link. I wish physics had been presented like that
in my day...but it wasn't. It's interesting to note that in a couple of
places, the presenter said something like "... most scientists agree
that...", which implies that there may well be other qualities of the
particles that are not understood at this time - and which could be
exploited.

--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln

On 17/09/2015 08:55, Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 17:38, Dave Platt wrote:

Here's a good video-and-animations explanation of the entanglement,
how we know it exists, and why it cannot be used to transmit
classical information faster than the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

Thanks for the video link. I wish physics had been presented like that
in my day...but it wasn't. It's interesting to note that in a couple of
places, the presenter said something like "... most scientists agree
that...", which implies that there may well be other qualities of the
particles that are not understood at this time - and which could be
exploited.

Looking through the video a second time, one of the contributors says
something like "...It's almost as if there's someone standing behind it,
playing us a trick". I took this to mean that while the gross,
measurable, properties have been accepted, there is more to this that
has yet to be discovered. It might well happen that a deeper knowledge
will reveal some property that could result in this being the basis of a
communications system or a matter transporter.

I'm struck by the comparison between this and the atomic physics of the
era when the state of knowledge of the latter amounted to that related
to protons, neutrons, and electrons.


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln