archiv~1: [Fwd: Re: SETI Quantum Communications.]

[Fwd: Re: SETI Quantum Communications.]

Wayne Shanks ( wshanks@erols.com )
Fri, 06 Nov 1998 22:05:47 -0500

Message-ID: <36439DFB.612C@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 20:10:19 -0500
From: Wayne Shanks <wshanks@erols.com>
Reply-To: wshanks@erols.com
Organization: FrankenFurter
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-DH397 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: seti@sni.net
Subject: Re: SETI Quantum Communications.
References: <a10ae654.36408c92@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

MarcusJohn@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/3/98 10:55:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> wshanks@erols.com writes:
>
> > Quantum mechanics forbids you to be able to
> > send a message at FTL speeds.
>
> I respectfully disagree. There is a link between entwined particles. There
> seems to be a FTL connection between the particles.

There is the fine distingtion. They are "entangled" In a way, the two
particles are two aspects of a single entity, The wave function. The
(not so much mystery, but..) Sublime distinction that QM points out is
that there are aspects of QM objects that carry no clasical
information. In deed QM information theory is a new and promising
avenue of investigation. Information, order, and entropy have very
interesting implications.

I have had several QM courses....No Quantum field theory yet. QM is
indeed odd and counter intuitive. For alot of aspects your intuition
must spring from the mathematics.

I admit that I am by no means the best source for QM interpretations or
explanations.

>There is also a FTL
> connection within a photon that passes through 2 slits at once.

connection does not mean communication....well maby ...My head hurts;-)

>Until someone
> can explain the mechanism of that link, we have no clue how to exploit it.

That is a fundamental debate in the field.... some would say that at a
basic ontological level, there is nothing to exploit.

We
> don't have that explanation yet, only a description of some of the properties
> of the particles, and proof of the link. I have not read anywhere of a law of
> quantum physics that states that that link is unexploitable.

Say we have two devices separated by some distance X. connecting the
devices is a beam of entangled particles to the end that there can be
FTL communication between the two points. In the rest frame of the
system we have an event at the first device "A". This event (a light
flash) is communicated instantaneously to point "B" which causes a flash
at boint B. point B transmits a FTL signal back to point A that
inhibits any further flashes at point A. In this system we can say the
event A causes event B and event B turns off the whole process.

An observer in the rest frame of the devices will observe that the
events(the light flashes) were similutaneous.

The relation t^2 -x^2 is invarient for any shift to a moving frame of
refrence.

In the rest frame the time between flashes is zero and the distance is X

Now go to a moving frame with respect to the devices moving past the
devices at speed V.

In the moving frame the distance between the devices is (1/gama)X ,
where gama is 1/Sqrt[1-V^2/c^2]. so in the moving frame X'=(1/gama)X .
Note that X' is smaller than X.

The invarient Lorentz scalar in this frame is

t'^2 - x'^2

setting the two scalars equal (which they must be)

t'^2 - x'^2=t^2 - x^2

t=0 ,X'=(1/gama)x

t'^2 - (1/gama^2)x^2= - x^2

for this to be true for the moving observer, she must see the two
flashes as non simultaneous (t' not equal to zero). Since the link is
instantaneous there can be no causal relationship between the two
flashes if they are sepparated in time. Indeed you can move to a frame
where device B flash first, then device A flash, but we set this
experiment up so that there can be no flash after the B flash. So
either a moving observer sees only one flash (which is different from
the rest frame observer) or she must conclude that the laws of physics
have changed for her simply because she is moving with respect to the
experiment.(a no no).

Either way the moving an rest frame observer can't agree on what
happened in the experiment. The can't even agree ao what the experiment
was.

All this ...because of instantaneous communication....

In fact, we don't
> have a clue as to what that link consists of. At least I don't.
>
> Do you? If you do, then let me know where I can get the info. I have always
> wanted to study up on quantum chromodynamics. BTW, there is a nice article on
> glueballs in the last Scientific American.

Interesting.... I will have to read this.

Did you read the article on zero interaction measurements a few year
back....Man that is creapy....But it is not FTL communication.

Wayne S