From: Robin Lee Powell (rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org)
Date: Sat Sep 22 2007 - 05:08:46 MDT
No-one has *ever* succeeded at transmitting information with quantum
entanglement, and I've never heard of a serious physicist who thinks
it's likely to be possible. When you look at an entagled particle,
both particles collapse, but they collapse to a completely random
shared state.
-Robin
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:24:54PM -0400, Justin Morgenthau wrote:
> New Scientist ran an article on this almost exactly a year ago:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125710.900-whats-done-is-done-or-is-it.html
>
> They refer to the phenomenon as "retrocausality". Supposedly a set of
> experiments were in the works to test the theory. A little quick
> googling was not able to turn up any results, so I assume that they
> did not, in fact, succeed in sending messages back in time...
>
> Justin Morgenthau
>
>
> On 9/21/07, Crunchy Frog <realcrunchyfrog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a thought...
> >
> > If you were to take a pair of entangled particles, slow one of them down,
> > and speed one of them up... would they not, in fact, experience different
> > proper times?
> >
> > Assuming the quantum entanglement survives this disparity (experiments with
> > K bosons show they do) wouldn't the time dilation effect build up, causing
> > an increasing difference in time between the two entangled particles such
> > that changing the quantum state of the slower one would manifest as the
> > opposite state change in the faster one at an earlier time?
> >
> > Would this not effectively give us a "window to the future"?
> >
> > And most importantly, isn't this the last invention? Since a window into
> > the future gives us access to all future inventions?
> >
> > Of course it's entirely possible that the slower particle in this case
> > would simply stay in a persistent state of superposition with the wave
> > function being unable to collapse either to prevent a causality violation
> > (Novikov's Self Consistency Principle) or because of a quantum cosmology in
> > which the size of our universe it not so much a function of the speed of
> > light over time since the big bang as they taught us in physics 101... but
> > rather a function of all the matter comprising the universe and every
> > possible quantum state of that matter and every subsequent possible quantum
> > state (minus the states with a quantum probability of zero).
> >
> > Sorry, just bored at work, thought I'd poke the hornet's nest! :D
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > ---- RCF
> >
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://intelligence.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT