I've seen a demonstration of it on TV. If you consider the spin to be like a bit, left is on, right is off, then you can transmit a video or audio stream, or anything else digital for that matter. http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw75.html A controversy is presently raging in certain physics journals and conferences over whether Einstein's speed of light barrier has been breached by light itself. In particular, Prof. Günther Nimtz and his group at the University of Cologne, Germany have published results showing that they used microwaves to transmit what might be interpreted as a signal, Mozart's 40th Symphony, over a path length of 11.4 centimeters at 4.7 times the speed of light. In this column, I want to examine this faster-than-light (FTL) controversy and its implications.
Definitely interesting! You've also nicely summed up why (so far) it's been of limited practical use -- there's no way to "force" one of the particles to take a certain spin, or to predict with certainty what it will be in advance. In effect, the observer is simply observing both particles (the local and the remote) at once, which is cool, but not communication (nor energy, force, or anything else meaningful from a classical perspective).
I'm by no means up to speed on this, but I was under the generic impression that particle spin was not simultaneously observable? As in, if I can observe one particle's spin, (similar to Pauli) the other must be opposite?
Key words Sender - one making the observation, attempting to send a message Receiver - one to receive the message once the sender observes the particle Ok, here is another idea about how to send a message, but it to has a flaw. If the sender theoretically has 1 million (arbitrary number over 1) particles, they could send a message based not on up spin or down spin recognized, but based upon which particle was observed. The observation would result in the entangled particle to choose the specific opposite spin. So once that particle is observed, the entanglement is severed. Now instead on an up or down correlating to a dot or dash, it would correlate to a pre determined message. The tie on the dorm room door meaning "getting sexy inside, stay out". The problem is that the receiver can't know which particle has been has been observed until they look and observe, automatically severing all the entanglements making all particles appear to be separated and all the particles appear to standing for an affirmative message. Let me know if this makes no sense, I have the unenviable task trying to explain an idea I hardly understand, even though it was my idea.
It's not about us solving it, it's about some geeks having fun trying to understand what is known, what is not known, and what can theoretically be known.
First of all it was a joke, like you said having some fun with the 3 variable "known(s)". Im surprised you didnt pick up on it, so with that being said I will try to post according to the 3 known(s) and have some fun with it
Got it. My head was elsewhere. By the way, welcome on board and its nice haing a new brave soul enter the OT section. few do. There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Donald Rumsfeld
It's a good thought-experiment, and an even better explanation of why it would almost certainly fail.
Correct, if you are saying what I think you are saying. When you observe one of the entangled particles, you "collapse" it into a single state (where before it had none/both), and simultaneously collapse its partner into the opposite state. So, in effect you are observing both.
That's far too difficult to wrap my brain around. I'll stick with the relative simplicity of simple relativity and QM
or... all possible states still exist in different infinitely branching realities and there is no actual collapse - you (one of an infinite "you") just fork to a particular branch and are only aware of the state on that branch.
