217 réponses à ce sujet

[Zavox]

Lyssistr wrote...

Zavox wrote...
Thanks for the good read, you seem quite knowledgeable on this subject. Area of expertise?

In conventional sending of information we do indeed have a need for a force to transfer information between points, but what I was suggesting to was quantum-entanglement. This in essence has the capability of virtually instantaneous transfer of information between 2 particles regardless of distance. Which of the 4 fundamental forces is at work here? (I'm not talking about whether we use a force for the transfer between said particle and a detector/reader, but rather the transfer between the particles).

When you measure on particle on a Bell pair (maximally entangled pair of qubits) you do not transmit any information. You do create a collapse e.g. on its spin subspace and make it have a determined value for its spin but you cannot pre-select what will that be, no transmission of information takes place.

Right, I figured you would be able to change one particle and thus be able to see on the other end what changed. But if you cannot pre-select what it will be there's not really any room left. Well maybe other than having alot of those pairs and one pair you change and the other you don't thus creating a binary signal, but that doesn't seem particularly effective. Or do you need to see both ends to actually notice something has changed?

[Arsonists get all the girls]

guys I was probed in places i will not mention by aliens, this is not a laughing matter

[Lyssistr]

Zavox wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Zavox wrote...
Thanks for the good read, you seem quite knowledgeable on this subject. Area of expertise?

In conventional sending of information we do indeed have a need for a force to transfer information between points, but what I was suggesting to was quantum-entanglement. This in essence has the capability of virtually instantaneous transfer of information between 2 particles regardless of distance. Which of the 4 fundamental forces is at work here? (I'm not talking about whether we use a force for the transfer between said particle and a detector/reader, but rather the transfer between the particles).

When you measure on particle on a Bell pair (maximally entangled pair of qubits) you do not transmit any information. You do create a collapse e.g. on its spin subspace and make it have a determined value for its spin but you cannot pre-select what will that be, no transmission of information takes place.

Right, I figured you would be able to change one particle and thus be able to see on the other end what changed. But if you cannot pre-select what it will be there's not really any room left. Well maybe other than having alot of those pairs and one pair you change and the other you don't thus creating a binary signal, but that doesn't seem particularly effective. Or do you need to see both ends to actually notice something has changed?

if you have more of these pairs you cannot do more only by measuring the particles on one side of the room.

in the single particle what happens is this, take (I'm not normalizing it for notational convenience) eg

|total state> = |up>|up>+|down>|down>

When I write |up>|up>, the first |up> is e.g. in Las Vegas and the second in Munich. Same goes for the |down>|down>. Note that only one pair of particles is there, |up>|up>+|down>|down> is the joint state of the two particles.


This is a state that cannot be reduced to independent states of the particle in Vegas vs the particle in Munich, it is so-called entangled.

Now let a guy in Vegas measure the spin of his particle. He will find it either up or down, each with 50% probability. Whatever he finds, the guy in Munich will find the same should he measure the spin of his particle. However, the guy in Vegas cannot predetermine if he'll get up or down, there is maximal uncertainty with regard to that. Therefore while his measurement does affect what the guy in Munich will measure on his particle, it does not determine it. The guy in Vegas cannot preselect and magically get an up or down state after a measurement, it's a random process.

For this reason he cannot send a "0" or a "1" to Munich.

[Sadinar]

Zavox wrote...

No, I do not. Might seem magic for us though (Arthur C. Clarke). Quantum Entanglement is quite real, and to our current understanding may very well be possible to transfer information.

Masterstroke! Referencing another fiction writer to validate an argument! To who's understanding of physics do you refer? If this group has not yet donned protective headgear, they should do so immediately!

Rest assured sir, you are preaching to the choir! Join me in my tin foil home and help spread the word! The aliens are among us, but our shiny savior is a mere five dollars and a grocery store car ride away!

[Lyssistr]

AwesomeName wrote...

Off-topic, but I'm curious...

I never persued physics at uni, and so I don't really understand this, but could you set up an array of particle pairs such that you have 2x 2-D planes of particles in separate rooms, and set it up so that if you affect one area of the plane, the exact same area is affected in the other plane? Or have I completely misunderstood quantum entanglement?

You can entangle any two blocks of matter and you can take them as far as you like in principle. Now that being said, there are many practical considerations and the task is not necessarily easy, because of a process called decoherence, interactions with the environment damage entanglement. At this moment that's a major obstacle for quantum computing and other quantum technologies. 

If your question is a matter of principle however, yes it can be done, you can have entangled blocks of matter, it is not a property reduced to bi-particle systems, it's just that these systems are the easiest ones to describe & solve, so people use them often in their examples.

In fact what you say, I think has been done in BEC experiments, where they split a condensate in two (they didn't literally put them in separate rooms but there is spatial separation between entangled blocks).

Modifié par Lyssistr, 12 octobre 2010 - 01:04 .

[Zavox]

Lyssistr wrote...

if you have more of these pairs you cannot do more only by measuring the particles on one side of the room.

in the single particle what happens is this, take (I'm not normalizing it for notational convenience) eg

|total state> = |up>|up>+|down>|down>

When I write |up>|up>, the first |up> is e.g. in Las Vegas and the second in Munich. Same goes for the |down>|down>. Note that only one pair of particles is there, |up>|up>+|down>|down> is the joint state of the two particles.


This is a state that cannot be reduced to independent states of the particle in Vegas vs the particle in Munich, it is so-called entangled.

Now let a guy in Vegas measure the spin of his particle. He will find it either up or down, each with 50% probability. Whatever he finds, the guy in Munich will find the same should he measure the spin of his particle. However, the guy in Vegas cannot predetermine if he'll get up or down, there is maximal uncertainty with regard to that. Therefore while his measurement does affect what the guy in Munich will measure on his particle, it does not determine it. The guy in Vegas cannot preselect and magically get an up or down state after a measurement, it's a random process.

For this reason he cannot send a "0" or a "1" to Munich.

Exactly what I thought after quickly having read a bit more about it. Would've been strange to have information go faster than the speed of light anyway, I guess . Thanks for the lesson!

Sadinar wrote...

Masterstroke!
Referencing another fiction writer to validate an argument! To who's
understanding of physics do you refer? If this group has not yet donned
protective headgear, they should do so immediately!

Rest assured
sir, you are preaching to the choir! Join me in my tin foil home and
help spread the word! The aliens are among us, but our shiny savior is a
mere five dollars and a grocery store car ride away!

Thank you kind sir for your very considerate response, though I'd like to stress that I was refering to Arthur C. Clarke for his famous quote about magic and technology. It's an accepted point of view, thus refering to it isn't necessarily wrong. Except maybe for it being an ad verecundiam.

Modifié par Zavox, 12 octobre 2010 - 01:11 .

[Sadinar]

Zavox wrote...

Thank you kind sir for your very considerate response, though I'd like to stress that I was refering to Arthur C. Clarke for his famous quote about magic and technology. It's an accepted point of view, thus refering to it isn't necessarily wrong. Except maybe for it being an ad verecundiam.

You are quite welcome! May I offer you a fashionable yet functional piece of headwear crafted with dedication and care from the finest tin foil Walmart has to offer?

[Lyssistr]

AwesomeName wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

You can entangle any two blocks of matter and you can take them as far as you like in principle. Now that being said, there are many practical considerations and the task is not necessarily easy, because of a process called decoherence, interactions with the environment damage entanglement. At this moment that's a major obstacle for quantum computing and other quantum technologies. 

If your question is a matter of principle however, yes it can be done, you can have entangled blocks of matter, it is not a property reduced to bi-particle systems, it's just that these systems are the easiest ones to describe & solve, so people use them often in their examples.

In fact what you say, I think has been done in BEC experiments, where they split a condensate in two (they didn't literally put them in separate rooms but there is spatial separation between entangled blocks).

I see, thanks, Lyssistr.  So say we had 2 people, person A and person B, try to communicate with each other using entangled blocks of matter, block A and B respectively, such that person A tried to affect part of block A, in the hopes that person B would magically see the same part of his block B change... Am I right in thinking this wouldn't really work because person B would have to be told by person A (by other means) which part of the block was affected, therefore making the whole exercise pointless?

Either A would have to tell him or they'd have to work in a pre-arranged set of areas in a pre-arranged order. This question is irrespective of quantum mechanics. If someone gave me a surface of bits instead of a string of bits, I simply wouldn't know where to start reading. I would need to be told or follow a pre-arranged procedure.

 That being said, to avoid confusion, you cannot transmit information solely by measuring entangled blocks of matter, see my post for the two-particle case.

[Lyssistr]

Zavox wrote...

 Would've been strange to have information go faster than the speed of light anyway, I guess . Thanks for the lesson!

That is correct if it were to transmit information, it would do so instantaneously, therefore violating relativity. However you do not need to invoke a principle from a different branch of physics to say that it doesn't transmit information, independently the whole setting is consistent with zero transfer of information. 

[Wicked 702]

This discussion is full of win. Seriously.

[Tazzmission]

Adriano87 wrote...

Is that derelict cruiser on moon real?!

ask john lear on openmindsforum.com. hes the ex cia guy

[grregg]

I would suggest looking at the original. It is available. Let's just say that the "enhancements" on that picture required a very active imagination...

Modifié par grregg, 12 octobre 2010 - 04:31 .

[Tazzmission]

i know alot of people are sceptical on the notion of this subject and the truth is critics and non believers make people like me and other ufo believers research 100% harder.. i know im probably a few hours late but i wanna point out that yes ancient alien theory is indeed a theory but so is science itself . science has indeed has done alot of things but not entirley everything. whatever happened to the world itself instead of depending on a answer why not become open minded and find other ways for key subjects such as this? i mean heck people believe the big bang happened and yet science never officialy discovered the starting point to it. i may sound a sceptic about science but i love it and honestly this world is so divided on whos right wether its religios beliefs or science beliefs..  its like now a days instead of searching for answers people demand from others since they have a science career or dr in there name

Modifié par Tazzmission, 12 octobre 2010 - 04:43 .

[Lyssistr]

Tazzmission wrote...

i know alot of people are sceptical on the notion of this subject and the truth is critics and non believers make people like me and other ufo believers research 100% harder.. i know im probably a few hours late but i wanna point out that yes ancient alien theory is indeed a theory but so is science itself . science has indeed has done alot of things but not entirley everything. whatever happened to the world itself instead of depending on a answer why not become open minded and find other ways for key subjects such as this? i mean heck people believe the big bang happened and yet science never officialy discovered the starting point to it. i may sound a sceptic about science but i love it and honestly this world is so divided on whos right wether its religios beliefs or science beliefs..  its like now a days instead of searching for answers people demand from others since they have a science career or dr in there name

 The big bang did not have a starting point, it's not supposed to work like throwing a cocktail bomb where an explosion happens somewhere. The big bang happened *everywhere* it's the creation of "everywhere".

 Even if that was were a valid question (it isn't) and science had no answer presently, it's a pretty flawed argument to say "oh, we don't yet know this" to use in order to support alien contact. 

[Tazzmission]

Lyssistr wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

i know alot of people are sceptical on the notion of this subject and the truth is critics and non believers make people like me and other ufo believers research 100% harder.. i know im probably a few hours late but i wanna point out that yes ancient alien theory is indeed a theory but so is science itself . science has indeed has done alot of things but not entirley everything. whatever happened to the world itself instead of depending on a answer why not become open minded and find other ways for key subjects such as this? i mean heck people believe the big bang happened and yet science never officialy discovered the starting point to it. i may sound a sceptic about science but i love it and honestly this world is so divided on whos right wether its religios beliefs or science beliefs..  its like now a days instead of searching for answers people demand from others since they have a science career or dr in there name

 The big bang did not have a starting point, it's not supposed to work like throwing a cocktail bomb where an explosion happens somewhere. The big bang happened *everywhere* it's the creation of "everywhere".

heres a theory i came up with about our universe. imo the big bang never happened and the universe was always here, everyday we hear how space is expanding instead of shrinking, even with todays telescopes we cant see the far reaches of space from earth unless its hubble or a space probe. for all we know earth itself could be alot older than what we think it to be.

[Lyssistr]

Tazzmission wrote...

heres a theory i came up with about our universe. imo the big bang never happened and the universe was always here, everyday we hear how space is expanding instead of shrinking, even with todays telescopes we cant see the far reaches of space from earth unless its hubble or a space probe. for all we know earth itself could be alot older than what we think it to be.

 well good lock submitting this into a peer reviewed journal. A theory is not "this is how I'd like things to work".

[Tazzmission]

Lyssistr wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

heres a theory i came up with about our universe. imo the big bang never happened and the universe was always here, everyday we hear how space is expanding instead of shrinking, even with todays telescopes we cant see the far reaches of space from earth unless its hubble or a space probe. for all we know earth itself could be alot older than what we think it to be.

 well good lock submitting this into a peer reviewed journal. A theory is not "this is how I'd like things to work".

so you really believe a big bang occured and it dosent at all need a starting point? that honestly makes no sence with all do respect.  and wile we are on the subject do you also believe are ancestors came from prime apes as well because it was mentioned in a science book or written in a scientific of america magazine?

[Lyssistr]

Tazzmission wrote...

so you really believe a big bang occured and it dosent at all need a starting point? that honestly makes no sence with all do respect.  and wile we are on the subject do you also believe are ancestors came from prime apes as well because it was mentioned in a science book or written in a scientific of america magazine?

 Honestly, I don't know what to say...

[Tazzmission]

Lyssistr wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

so you really believe a big bang occured and it dosent at all need a starting point? that honestly makes no sence with all do respect.  and wile we are on the subject do you also believe are ancestors came from prime apes as well because it was mentioned in a science book or written in a scientific of america magazine?

 Honestly, I don't know what to say...

and im not trying to be mean and my intention is to try and point people into a diffrent direction. i know this may not be the best example but look at global warming and the ridiculous statements they say. we actually have scientists  basicly say every one needs to quit eating meat seeing as that causes global warming. im sorry but if a scientist can sit there and say that than to me what we know as science is a lie and a scam. the only faith i have in is what einstein has done other than that everything else could indeed be fabricated

Modifié par Tazzmission, 12 octobre 2010 - 05:14 .

[Sadinar]

Lyssistr wrote...

 Honestly, I don't know what to say...

I have heard it said that ignorance is bliss. Bliss is, by definition, extreme happiness. Likewise, one cherry picked definition of being gay is being happy.

So you could say that he is extremely... happy.

My logic is infalable!

[Weiser_Cain]

There are no aliens visiting earth.

I am a mass of genetic disorders, the human body is a jury-rigged mess, that's not design.

Did I miss anything else?