I think the idea of “observing it changes it’s state” can be confusing for some people. What that really means is that in order to observe something, you have to interact with it somehow. You can poke it and see what it feels like, you can blast it with a photon and see how it reflects off, the problem is that with things this small, something as simple as a photon interacting with it can completely change it. Think of trying to figure out if a tower of rocks will fall over or not, but all you are allowed to do to figure it out is poke it. You poking it might knock it over, or it might not. But if poking it did knock it over, you don’t know if it would have fallen over if you didn’t poke it to begin with.
I don't ""understand"" either -- unless you define ""understand" as meaning one sees it so one accepts it, even though it goes against what one feels ought to be the case. To me this stuff is a black box -- I don't follow the math and I would never think it up on my own -- but I do accept the conclusions as the best description we have.
To admit to not understanding is already a giant step towards understanding. It's those who think they know it all already that are in real trouble. I admire your statement!
I know there's most likely a flaw in my understanding. But how about this? Use time as a way to measure a stream of entagled particles being collapsed or not collapsed as a binary code. The sender and receiver each start with large arrays of matched entangled particles. At determined intervals, let's say once per millisecond, the sender will either observe the first particle in the array, or it won't. If it does observe it, that collapses the superimposed state, the receiver will see the collapsed state, and we can call that a 1. If the sender decides not to observe then that particle will remain superimposed and we call that a 0. In case you are dealing with relative time differences, the first several bits in a communication can all be 1s (collapsations) to declare the frequency of each bit. So even if the receivers frequency is 1.5ms per bit, the 'read speed' can still be reliably established. So then each following bit will get a collapse or not get a collapse each time cycle and you can build a up a binary message. If this is at least theoretically possible, it seems that managing thousands or billions of individual entangled particles could be hard... Where is the flaw in this idea?
If the limiting factor is determining who opened their box first to coerce the result you see, why can't you have multiple systems, where party A only every sends information through system A which party B will 100% know that party A is the first to open their box, and party B can reply through system B to party A.
I don't think you can send information by changing the state of one of the entangled particles because I think that changing the state breaks the entanglement.
So Paul to your example, couldn't that be overcome by my particle presenting with a complex pattern. For example if you made a device to manipulate your particle and you manipulate your particle in a binary format to correspond with a internet cat video could I not then wherever I am, record what my particle is doing and realize it's a cat video and thus deduce you "sent" me a cat video? I mean the other option would be the universe or something just randomly showed me a cat video. Which I think could be safely ruled out especially after I start watching Netflix via my particle. I know sent is not the right word but English isn't set up to really make sense of this kind of thing. So please forgive me.
He doesn't really address that. Maybe it's not really sending information or something. Although if you can break locality the speed of causality in cases like this becomes almost pointless I think. At least when asking how long after his particle moves will I see my particle move.
I don't think you fully understood, or maybe I don't understand what you are saying, as what you say doesn't help at all. It remains impossible to report an observation to others other than by "classical" means.
The things is, without the "key" from the "sender", the reading you will get of your "cat video" will be totally random, thus scrambled. You have no way of ID-ing it as a cat video.
@Frank It sounded to me like he was trying to say there isn't a way to tell if the particle is being random or being set by it's entangled partner until you use "classical" means to confirm it and there for it can't be used to "send" information. I was trying to say that already knowing it was going to be used in the way I presented any complex and coherent pattern could safely be assumed to be a message because the likelihood of that randomness being a cat video followed by shows off Netflix would be so astronomically improbable it may as well be impossible.
If the entangled particles are both being observed and one is changed then the other must instantaneously change (faster than light). The observer who caused the change will have sent a faster than light signal to the other observer. Our inability to observe the experiment as it takes place from a universal standpoint has no bearing on the outcome. The appearance that the action seems to break the rules of causality is simply an illusion of perspective. There is no paradox because the action will have occurred prior to the reaction. Humans are incredibly smart... perhaps one day they'll realize that it is not their observations that determine what takes place. It is the act itself.
"If the entangled particles are both being observed and one is changed then the other must instantaneously change (faster than light)" - There is no evidence that this can happen, or that this is the way it would work. There is no way to change one without breaking the entanglement. We can only observe one and know the state of the other.
Why do we call them entangled instead of SYNCHRONIZED? Wouldn't it be easier to explain that two particles maintain synchronization no matter the distance? Thus we expect to know the state of one by observing the other, and no communication between the two particles takes place beyond the initial entanglement?
I am confused. Why does it matter that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light? Isn't entanglement something other than information traveling between two particles? Couldn't we just say that the information doesn't travel anywhere, as both particles are essentially the same particle in two places?
you set your particle to UP and then the other particle becomes DOWN. When you check them or report about them is irrelevant to their state. You altered your particle and by proxy the entangled particle. Now change the particle again... in a pattern... like a Morse code. That is instant communication... faster than light.
The sheer fact that non locality is a thing, regardless of our ability to utilize it in a meaningful way, literally keeps me up at night. I wish I knew what it meant D:
Nice explanation. Does that mean, entangled particles behave like pseudo random number generators with the same seed? The results are the same at both positions but you can't manipulate the outcome of one to alter the state of the other.
I don't think the video really explains this but that's what I've deduced. When you entangle two particles, all they are doing is following the same predetermined pattern. They're not really affecting each other at all. When you change the pattern of one particle it doesn't do anything to the other particle and effectively the entanglement is broken. A bit of a letdown if this is true.
Maybe if there are some universal rules about who looks first, it there were a system already set up, and if we were to somehow dicover it, like an universal tunning key. If we were to receive this instruction via conventional methods, will we be able to do faster than light comunication afterwords?
You'd simply use a synchronization clock to denote who observes thier particle first and who second. A variation of this (in a none quantum world) is used everywhere today in circuits and telecommunications.
If the boxes are opened simultaneously or almost simultaneously and later the notes are compared then we can conclude that the information travelled from one point to other almost simultaneously much before any light signal . Comparing the notes later does not mean that your particle did not receive the information faster than light. Kindly enlighten me.
I don't think you can transmit information. I think all you can do is evaluate the initial entangled states but once you alter the state of one of the particles it breaks the entanglement.
Something that has been puzzling me for a while: Take two entangled electrons, separate them, and place each into a packet. Repeat this a thousand times to have two "entangled" packets, each with a thousand electrons. Gather two sets of a thousand packets each (numbered 1-1000), and then seperate the sets from one another. Each second after the separation, one packet in sequence is sent through a double slit and then hits a sensor. The sensor will then show either a wave or particle distribution. If we measure which slit the electrons pass through (or the spin for that matter), they will yield a particle distribution (since we "collapse" the wave equation), and if we don't, a wave distribution. If I record the slit-passages for one full packet in the sequence, the wave equation for the corresponding entangled packet of electrons should also collapse, and thus yield a particle distribution. My partner, who has the entangled set of electrons, should then, without intefering with the system, see a particle distribution for the corresponding packet. Each time I don NOT conduct a slit-measurement, it corresponds to a 0, each time I DO measure, it signifies a 1. Could I then not transmit a binary sequence to my partner via the collapse of wave-equations? There should be some logical flaw (disregarding the impracticality of it), but the people I've spoken to haven't been able to help me yet.
Anything is possible, since quantic has multiple possibilities , what if the paradox interfere with gravity, is there any instrument to test gravity and what is the unit name?...
Not that I really understand this and maybe my monkey brain just can't handle it, but wouldn't "setting a precise time" imply a standard reference frame for space/time? As I understand it, as soon as the two observers move apart there starts being a complex interrelationship where accelerations, decelerations, local gravity wells, etc. cause their time reference frames to diverge. Therefore there would be no shared "precise time". I only hope that Dr. Sutter will see this and address it.
As Paul was saying, I think it'd be more of an issue of being certain. When you check the particle/s, they appear random regardless. You'd never know if the other person definitely did open them or not - there's no 'message read'. So the random quantum states could merely be that, random, without anyway of knowing for sure.
Exactly what Jayden said. Entanglement is great for cryptography - you know when signals are tampered with, but that's only after classical communication paths are followed.
I take my "box" across the room and watch as you open yours. Then I open mine. Problem solved. Or how about we synchronize our watches while remaining stationary relative to one another? It seems to me that, with precise enough equipment, the reporting of the outcome to one another afterward is irrelevant to the actual outcome measured.
@@smithbros1000 Taking your box across the room and "watch" you open that box is slower than light. Take your box across the galaxy and watch your partner opening it won't work.
"Paul asked me to do this experiment" (4:12) sounds like a perfect sentence to utter the next time someone walks into a room when I'm awkwardly entangled. Then again, I'd rather be up than down and Paul already nicked the up. Hmm, you know what? I'd love to see someone do this experiment: measure loads of entangled particles on both ends... experimenter A gets to do a couple of measurements first and B has to be the first on several other measurements. Then at the end both A & B should have measure 50% ups and 50% downs. And then see if the first observer of each measurement had a nice 50%/50% split between the ups and downs as well. I'd totally expect most the unspectacular results, but I don't think it would be too easy to perform.
Triple entanglement and the recipient gets the noisy result of the sender's pair of entanglements via environmental connection. So can via vacuum the sender alter the sent bit by choice of noisy choice of correlation? Of course the sender has 2 dissimilar shit spreaders.
If two synchronized watches instad of electrons would be used, sent apart, then the same happens - looking at one watch you know what the other one is showing. What is so weird about it? It only tells us that after entanglement both obey the same rules
I've been thinking about this for years and the way I see it, the only way for communication to actually take place would be to manipulate particle. For example, if you agreed on an exact time with the recipient to make their measurement and you were to flip the particle in a particular way, you could send them 1 bit of information.
You literally just restated the idea I had. If you had a protocol that would establish a schedule of when each system should check a given entangled particle, you could send a bit FTL. The protocol itself would have to travel at light speed, but essentially I wonder if the "phone call" can happen before the probably wave is collapsed as opposed to after.
yea probably. and all i ever heard was that changes are instantaneous.... so i don't understand why That change can not be used to send binary signals ....... you can use 2 pairs of 2 entangled particles one for 0 one for 1 and assume any change in the state of the designated particles is a transmittance of the binary digit associated with it. using 4 particles, 2 for sending 2 for receiving could allow u to communicate across the universe instantaneously unless the changes with entangled particles do not happen instantaneously but all i ever hear is that they are instantaneous. ( bandwidth would depend on how fast you can change and measure there changes.)
So if I understand it correctly entanglement is not FTL communication cos even if both sender and receiver have set a binary sequence for signifying communication the receiver will never be sure if its actually communication or lucky dice roll until the sender come over and confirms?
Exactly, and once you observe the particle the entanglement is broken since the state is determined. If you start wiggling your particle the partner doesn't "know" about it.
Hold on though, I thought the experiment was not wondering who opened the box first. I thought it was taking 2 entangled particles, say 2 up, and separating them by say, a light hour, so orbiting an outer planet (insert Uranus joke here). Then, you know that you and the other particle are both UP, you change yours to down. With entanglement, the other should change to DOWN and it should do so instantly. Then you can keep changing it and you have a sort of FTL Morse code machine.
I can't help but think of this situation (problem) as being just like so many others throughout history where all the "experts" were completely convinced that they were right and staked their careers and reputations on declaring something can't possibly be achieved, only to have that impossible thing be achieved in the near future. We'll figure this one out too. Or we'll be "helped". lol
Hello, please help me understand: I understand your point about classical communication being necessary however the theory still holds, that entanglement transmits information faster than the speed of light they proved that in studies, most recent in China. For example, take your original example but instead of box A and B both being on earth, move box B to Alpha Centuri. After sending radio waves back and forth, 4 years each way, we decided to communicate with entanglment exactly at 1pm Jan 1st 2420 ce. You send me a Morse code from the entanglement spins. I knew exactly in time when to look at my box B of entangled particles I didn't need to wait for your classical communication speed of light. So it's transmitting information through space faster than the speed of light right?
This disregards the proof of Bell's Inequalities: there are no local hidden variables. In other words, there's more than simple correlations happening. Remember, if you're using "coincidence counters" in your experiment than you are measuring coincidence (aka correlations). The circular reasoning seems apparent when phrased like this: "We can only prove a particle is entangled with another particle if we can compare it to the entangled particle". I speculate FTL communication, if possible, would work something like this: binary 1 = particle is entangled binary 0 = particle is no longer entangled For some stream of particles the measurement would be compared against background noise, not to its correlated particle(s). This does not seem to violate having anything travelling faster than the speed of light, however, it might be time we investigate our understanding of causality at the quantum level.
If the state to which Quantum particle is going to resolved is a function of Observer, then Observing the 2 particles in a Quantum entangled system at a given time is a paradox. Was it destined to resolve in that state or was it the Observation that resolved it?
How do you know if the particles are instantaneous entangled if you have to confirm that the states of the two particles through observation and the use of sub-light communication to confirm the states?
so the act of measuring confuses the communication layer until you classically compare notes to determine if entanglement was a byproduct of measurement and not initiated...
Ok they are entangled, but if you could change the up and down at will, would you not be able to change the others up or down and send a binary signal?
What if: You give some of this theoretical boxes to your friend and send him far away. You have the pairs of this boxes. You agree that you open up a box at an agreed time, and he opens his at t+some small time. If you get an up you agree that you press a button which sends a start signal in light speed to your friend. If he gets a down he starts to play some music, so this down electron is his trigger. So before the trigger signal gets there from your button press, you already triggered the music to start with the entangled electron. I know it's not real communication, but you could trigger an event faster than light? Or at least you can get an almost certain info what is happening far away, faster than light?
The issue is that you don't *know* if you're friend opened the box at the correct time. You would have to wait for normal communication channels to make the verification.
What if though, Person A influences Particle A at set time, and Person B observes Particle B at a set time after Person A, and Person A sends a message in binary. There was no side channel communication to ask "Did you send me a message?", but the message received is "Come here Watson, I need you?".
You can't know that Person A or Person B actually did the messaging correctly at the right time, and some rules of quantum mechanics prohibit you from constructing entangled states that tell you without normal communication.
So many people get this wrong and you are one of them. Sorry. The question of who looked first is irrelevant and can easily be planned ahead of time. The real problem is that you cannot know if the other person looked or not. This would require many copies of the quantum state. Because you cannot build a probability distribution graph based on a sample size of one. The problem is that it is against the laws of nature to create a 100% perfect copy-a clone of a quantum state. And right there is where EVERYONE gets it wrong. We don’t need perfect clones to accomplish the task. In fact, we only need it to be greater than 50% accurate. And the good news is that we can and do create less than perfect quantum copies. We also don’t need the entire system to have 5-sigma accuracy. The internet works just fine without 5-sigma. Quantum computers are only 97-99% accurate. So yes, faster than light communication is, at least in theory, possible. Forget all this causality nonsense also. All of quantum mechanics violates causality.
Are you saying that if you quantum entangle particles and separate them that you can modify the spin of one of the particles and the other will change as well to follow what you changed?
does entanglement of particles have to take place when particles are in close proximity or are there ways to entangle particles far from one another? every example I've seen has a pair of entangled particles created by a single event which are then separated and measured at a distance. the "spooky action at a distance" arises when one particle is measured and the other one behaves consistently when measured even if the particles are light-years apart. the particles have to start out together to be entangled, right? just curious whether that's pretty much a hard and fast rule or just the way people commonly make these physics videos.
can't you just have one side be opening the box first all the time, with a delay on the second box by a fraction of a trillionth of a second in delay, and use two very precise clocks based on decay of particals to calibrate it and time when to open the box on the distant end. Also using relativity to calculate the time dilation and synchronize the clocks?
I'm no scientist but I have to say that a lot of people are asking the same question as myself. Why not TFL communication. The answers given by others, as with this video make no sense... you seem to just go back to, it just can't be done without classical communication.
I THINK IT IS ABSURD TO THINK THERE IS NOTHING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, THAT IS CONSIDERING OUR LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF TOTAL UNIVERSE PHYSICS, WE JUST HAVEN'T DISCOVERED WHAT IT IS YET. THE SPEED OF LIGHT HITS TOGETHER AT 2X THE SPEED OF LIGHT ...MASS....ENERGY IN A COLLIDER.
So presumably you can't change the spin of a particle because if you could 'flip' one of the electrons wouldn't the corresponding particle also flip thus sending a signal?
Can't we have a 2 particles send as far away from each other eg in Asia and America have a computer send a message from a place exactly the same distance away from both particles eg Europe. Computer in Europe send a message for both of the particles to be looked at; signal travels gets there at the same time, is being measured and both places send their results back to the middle of the results get back in the same time and one up and one down we know they communicated faster then light. Am I right?
What if it was decided that people on earth open the box before people on mars and the when the Martians (still us) open the box they know what earth got. Now take that and take to another galaxy. It may take years to get there but it will other galaxies people will know whenever they want what the Milkyway galaxy got. That might be useful for something? Tell me if I'm wrong, please!
Imagine a device that is kind of photo camera, but matrix is made of particles, and imagine a device #2(lets call it photo receiver) where I keep particles too, so particles in camera and particles in receiver are entangled. Now, lets take camera and go to another half of the universe and take a photo, camera changes spins of the particles to represent image, now, I am on earth boot up my receiver. so particles on my receiver are going to have spins that match spins of the camera and thus I get the image faster than speed of light? I wonder if I am missing something here? I assume, camera can change spins of particles in the matrix tho.
If one particle decides to change its spin from up to down, when will the other particle know to flip from down to up ? Does that signal travel at the speed of light too ?
Hear me out, consciousness the use of would be intaneous communication. Communication that couldn't be hacked or intercepted. Wouldn't be held to either Comological principles or Quantum Mechanical. All you need is a tuner that could get a mind to vibrate at the right frequency maybe. Science fiction ???
Well, check upon delayed entanglement swapping (which is not totally controlled yet, but hints at this FTL communication) since the recipients receives a pair of particles instead of just 1 as your video shows, the recipients measurement can determines if the sender casted entanglement in a single batch of particles without the need of a classical channel
I ask the spaceman this: How does an object with mass warp “the fabric” of space time ? Shouldn’t that fabric need mass or something to be affected by the gravity of said object? What in the fabric of space time is being acted upon for that to happen?
Good question! I encourage you to watch my series on General Relativity. The word "fabric" is just a convenient metaphor. The math teaches us that mass/energy simple *are* distortions in spacetime itself.
I (think I) understand the distinction you’re trying to make. Here we see communication as one type of potential application for quantum entanglement, even it doesn’t work because causality like you said. I think the keyword here is « application ». We could not send signals faster than light with two entangled particles, true. But what if we had (keeping an example of 2 potential states in mind-up and down) 5 of these electrons instead of one. In this situation, if I want to encode something with a password demandant on these particles’ state. Ok nevermind, password verification and confirmation would still break causality. But I guess my overall point about application keeps some sense to it - maybe we need to think outside the box to figure out how we may use entanglement.
The question that comes to my mind regarding entanglement is why does this have to apply to quantum mechanics, and why does communication have to come after the “unveiling” of the particles? As an example, let’s say we have different colored pencils, a green and a red. We put each in an identical box and move around the boxes so we don’t know which box has which pencil. You then take one box and travel to Alpha Centauri. At that point you open up your box and see you have a red pencil, so know that I have a green. The chances were 50/50 before the boxes were opened, but now you know with100 percent certainty that I have a green pencil. The information has not been transmitted between us, but that’s not relevant, because we set up pre-existing conditions. If you have red, I have green, and vice versa. We also know that whoever has green is “it”, and a certain game of tag has commenced. This information has also not been transmitted, but doesn’t have to be, because the rules were pre-arranged. Quantum Mechanics and the limitations of light speed are not addressed because they don’t have to be.
So if I have two entangled particles. Knowing they are entangled in a system, right? Then I start to receive a signal that translates to a personal letter from you to me, about things we are both familiar with.... That's just not possible and totally random because information can't be sent faster than the speed of light.... I think you're wrong.
@@TheHighSpaceWizard There is still hope for faster than light communications I just don't think quantum entanglement is the way. Perhaps we can focus on inter-dimensional communications.
@@russellneitzke4972 eh. We're already making quantum computers our next big step in data processing. Communications will naturally follow. Quantum is the computing and internet of the future.
@@TheHighSpaceWizard Yes I like the progress there and the leak that google has a quantum supercomputer that can circumvent all present security measures instantly. I just don't think it's faster than light.
Split a photon. It sort of presents a whole other problem of entangling particles over great distances. To date it has only been done at a distance of 30km.
So what if Alice is running a two slot experiment while Bob decides to either observe it not observe a bunch of particles in a sequence. Would Alice see the interference pattern flash on and off?
No. Not how it works. If Bob uses his particles for a double slit experiment Alice would not be able to tell so by looking at her particles. She could even use her particles for her very own double split experiment. Yet both could measure the spin of each particle and would get spin up or down 50% of the time and they could tell "aha, Alice/Bob got the opposite spin for that one". If the particle is entangled or not does not matter to the double slit experiment. Only thing that matters is "did you see the particle going through a specific slit yes or no"? But that property "it got through the right/left slit" is not an entangled property. The "entangled particle" could get through a different slit if you set up a second double slit experiment.
Damn, you got Patreon and stuff, but you won't even let me keep one electron? I have to give it back?? It's the smallest thing ever! Dr. Sutter, that's not nice 😠
I am pretty confident that entanglement can't be used for superluminal communication... However, I propose two ways this 'might' be achievable: At each node, where the entangled particles reside, perhaps set up an environment where the particles can only both be up, or both down. No up/down, down/up variance. If that isn't possible, making an entangled "if/then/else web" of particles *might* be able to tell each node what their states are... However, you will need a way to re-entangle the particle web after each bit of information is sent, because it would have collapsed. Purely speculation, just something I've thought about... First time I've articulated it.
@@russellneitzke4972 The problem is verifying you got the right info. We can treat it like a UDP stream and just accept whatever on the receiving end, but the only way to verify the integrity of the qubit sent is by luminal means. We can defeat this requirement if we lock sets of entangled particles to only down or up, and treat the state of up-down or down-up as error correction when verifying the state of the other node. It's not as reliable, but it can help better the confidence in the opposing node state. You don't get the quantum processing abilities this way, but you get to utilize spook action and binary. Timing to read the states can be maintained by an alternating pair of entangled particles. The hz rate would be the rate at which they flip. I would love to work in a lab to put my ideas to experiment, haha.
Schrodinger's cat; the concept itself assumes a predictability, ie; a future time viewing device. In this imitated reality we must assume that the universe itself is functioning like a computer to solve the outcome. Although such a thing may seem a pipe dream, it's actually been done more than once. I can note the Montauk project, also a Time Warner project to see traffic in Portland that ended up seeing everything about 12 hours ahead, or the fantastic story of Al Bielek, the Navy Sailor who disappeared over 200 years into the future from the U.S.S. Hammond. He reported that some intelligent beings had helped put him there during the dematerialization of the ship. Witnesses on the pier describe the ship surrounded in a green oblong light just before it vanished, later to reappear just off the coast of France where it had to be towed back to the shipyard. The problem of field unification is the real issue here, to solve faster than light principles of any kind. For this I can help as I have discovered field unification with formula and predictive proof since 1996 when first published on the web, and in 2003 when copyrighted in my unpublished manuscript "Infinite Universe". My works predicted many things including the exact geometry necessary to explain type 1.5 superconductivity not modeled until years later on supercomputer by an Egor Babaev. In short, the twisted light wave is just one thing that proved my theory and is key here since by twisting charge (the sum of poles) using a 3 phase directional mechanism of some kind, always running a carrier wave to produce a continued fractal, is how all faster than light transmitters and or transceivers can function. In the files of Rex Research I found an RF version of a faster than light transceiver, while lately the record was set at 310x light speed using laser light. Certainly this can be vastly improved. For example, a special material charged with 500kv pulses around a fiber optic cable can see through solid objects, and is therefore of high enough amplitude to cut through interference you might get using other methods. A professor Omynyrov working at a SanDiego University discovered this many years ago, but like many other things was buried or turned into a classified project by the army or navy. Ask me the formula for unification. It's simple.
Hello Sir! Thank for the ongoing awesome content! I recently posted an idea on Fraser Cain's channel, and he has suggested that you might be better able to refute it :) Basically my assumption is that a singularity is pulling in space as well as matter, so no infinite singularity ever exists because the addition of infinite space being pulled in too cancels out the infinities. I will paste the message here, I hope you can figure out my nonsense :p " Hi Fraser, I am interested in your thoughts and position of the idea that there is a universe is within a singularity. I have put a great deal of thought in to this, fitting it to a few paragraphs is challenging. My key assumption is that black holes would be pulling in space as well as matter, I believe this is why we currently have issues with infinite density at the singularity; we’re failing to take in to account the space that is also being pulled in to create a place for that matter to exist without invoking infinities. Furthermore, If more space is pulled in than matter, the interior of the singularity will grow to expansive levels with very little matter to spread around, akin to inflation. The system inside the event horizon also can’t move energy outside of the event horizon anymore either, it can only be moved from one system to another within the singularity. Sound familiar? When the intake of matter in to our black hole stalls (like the original merger of two massive stars) space expansion is then the dominant force consumed by the black hole, so internal expansion dominates. I believe that if particle/antiparticle pair theories are correct, then the Schwarzschild radius should grow as the surviving particle adds to the reach of the singularity without adding to it’s mass. Internally this might manifest as every location within the singularity expanding away from everything else as more space is created, and furthermore, a bigger surface area of the singularity means it will access even more virtual particles., increasing the production of space exponentially. Internally, expansion would appear to be getting faster."" So internally it will appear that extra space is appearing everywhere from nothingness at an ever increasing rate, but externally it's just the boundary of the event horizon growing and pulling in more space. Does that make any sense? There must be an equation that applies to the expansion of space over distances which could be also described by an external boundary getting larger, and I believe that's dark energy.
1) A black hole can't get bigger by consuming space. Its size is determined by its mass. 2) You forget the time dimension. Imagine Earth pulling a bit of spacetime into its center, but every second, that space is left behind in the past. In the end the space inside Earth is a bit denser (and time a bit stretched, because that's how it works), but it does not "accumulate" over time.
I had an experience, proving our brains do communicate from thousands miles away...my grandma called my name at 1am...the moment she was dying...it woke me up. I shot straight up in bed at 1am in Portland Oregon...she was in Palm Springs with her daughter who confirmed she had called my name out at that very moment.
So this is something I've always wondered about. With binary star systems, what is the effect on the partner star when the other goes supernova? For example, does the radiation blow away the outer layers of the star, increase nuclear reactions, etc.?
Why not use the surrounding “Dark Matter/Negative Energy”, that fills the void which everyone calls emptiness, as the delivery component for communications? If our universe is interconnected everywhere to everything always then wouldn't a message be received instantly everywhere once it is sent? "Instant Communication".... Example string Place a string from here to any location in the universe and keep tension on it (imagine the string weighs nothing and cannot stretch/deform in any way). Cause: tug on the string Effect: the individual holding the string at the other end would instantly feel a tugging sensation Example stick Place a stick between here and any location in the universe (imagine the stick weighs nothing and cannot stretch/deform in any way). Cause: push on the stick Effect: the individual holding the stick at the other end would instantly feel a pushing sensation Distance between Earth and Moon = 1.3 Light Seconds [299,792 km * 1.3 sec = 389,729 km]. Distance between Earth and Sun = 8 Light Minutes [299,792 km * (8*60) sec = 143,900,160 km]. Distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri = 4.4 Light Years [299,792 km * (4.4 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60) sec = 41,598,658,252,800 km]. Tugging/pushing action on Earth would instantly register at any given location in the universe and not take any time whatsoever. We need to stop thinking that void equals nothing. The Universe has no void! All space in this universe is filled to the rim with positive and negative energy like a glass filled with water. If an object is placed in the glass of water the water is then displaced and every point within the water in that glass registers a change. We cant increase the speed of a communication that uses waves past the speed of light, but if we use the existing string of “Dark Matter/Negative Energy” particles between sender and receiver like the stick example mentioned above then we would be able to send a message faster than the speed of light (indirectly).
Light travels 2 seconds from earth to moon. How if there is a long string from earth to moon? If you pull the string, the A and B ends of the string have the same motion/time.
because the string isnt moving the entire distance from the earth to the moon. If i had a mile long string and i pulled it it only moved how far i pulled the string it didnt travel 1 mile.
That won't work. Pulling the string in either direction is subject to "causality", which cannot travel faster than light. Pulling on a string causes a wave through the string, and it's the same in principle as a light wave.
Since the day of mine exploded on my shop I started hearing voice and I suspect something beyond life had happened and even now is still hearing voice in my head and had no idea what is really happened to my illness even most doctor diagnosis me but none is corrected
If we had a faster-than-light communication system that was still in some way limited by distance, lets say the light passes between a wormhole between Earth and Mars, so for example we could communicate instantly with the planet Mars but there was still a time delay if communicating with the planet Jupiter, would this still break the rules of causality? Is how time is experienced the same throughout our solar system?
But quantum entanglement isn't dependent on communication. I know that an up electron entangled partner is down. I don't need to have an observer communicate it to me. So at least the communication between the entangled electrons is faster than light. How they communicate however no one knows.
Ok, here’s an engineering ftlc question: if you had a screw 2 or more light years long and you rotated it, wouldn’t the entire screw rotate at the same time?
This is fales. You having to communicate your findings at non ftl speeds dosent negate the fact entangled particals do communicated ftl. All that your example has shown is that humans can't communicate ftl.
Hey, I have a theory regarding special relativity and entangled particles as a form of binary communication through time. You entangle two particles. Keep one particle in a lab and place the other particle in a particle accelerator at 99.9% the speed of light. If you were to keep the particle in the accelerator for let's say one hour, there would be a time dilation of one hour between the particles. Would that entangled particle from the accelerator then be able to affect the original particle in the lab from an hour in the past? If it could, we could use the spins of the entangled particles as a form of binary to send information through time. Comment your thoughts and opinions
Well let's say you have a chain of entangled particles and you communicate before hand a scenario such as if the particle is up you open the box next to it if the particle is down you skip that box and go to the next box in the chain? At the end of the expirement both sides should arrive at the same conclusion correct? So how would causality play out? The only way for this expirement to play out is for both parties to receive the same data at roughly the same time regardless of distance. That is a form of communication isn't it? But more importantly quantum spin doesn't just get measured in the up down state it gets measured in an all direction. State. So let's say the initiator of the experiment measures in the up and down state on one box in the chain but then alternates between left right measurements. Now on the other side of the expirement the person only measures in the up down state? How would that work I mean you open the box expecting a particle spin either in the up or down spin rate but it's aligned in the left right configuration? Wouldn't that create the conditions of a basic binary single faster than the speed of light? I mean the receiver is either in the up down configuration or its not? You'd know the other person opened the box before at that point.
Ok, here is the thing. What if I open my box, and no matter what I get from my measurement, I FORCE my electron to have a spin up? Will this cause your electron to have spin down automatically? If so, we have just created one way communication device.
I feel like most of these videos leave out the idea of ignoring the measured spin state, etc, and just using the question "is the particle still in a superposition" (based on pre-arranged timing) as the 1 or 0. as i understand it, the ability to CHECK whether a particle is still in a superposition or not requires that it be alongside its partner (defeating the purpose).
I am still skeptical. There is still a 50% chance that information was transmitted FTL. If you had protocol or handshake that would pre-schedule the exact moments to check the entangled particle you can get around this problem. The protocol itself would have to travel at light speed, but the "phone call" where information is shared could happen before the entanglement as opposed to after.
So, entangled paricles don't break cause and effect (causality), but do break spacetime aka relativity (locality)? Every time I see your videos I wish you were my teacher and listen to your lessons for hours...
How is this different from Einstein's Left and Right glove example? That is, if I ship you a glove from a set, you open the box and see a left glove, my box has the right glove. No magic there.
Brian Street The magic is the glove isn't "right" or "left" until you open the box. And the act of opening the box and seeing my box is a "right" *forces* yours to be a left. Einstein though the glove was a "right" and we just didn't know that until we opened the box (local hidden variable), but that isn't true. The reason we know this is because of Bell's inequality.
Can’t it still be used as a signal? Then even more complicated sets of signals like Morse code. The problem is that it would need to be observed or monitored at all times to keep the same spin intact. All because of the 50/50 problem
Isn't is possible to flip the spin of 1 particle, therefore changing the other? Is there no method in which 1 bit of information could be worked out ahead of time. "if my measurement I take every second changes then it's time to attack" sort of thing. I do realize quantum mechanics isn't as simple as this, it's just as deep an understanding as I've been able to hold onto for any length of time.
@@russellneitzke4972 ah interesting. I know I was wrong because a lot smarter people than myself have considered these things, but I'm interested in why it is that I was wrong.
Based on reading these comments, the video maker is assuming the audience knows a lot about Quantum Entanglement. Let me know if this is right or wrong: "You can't communicate FTL with QE because you can't communicate at all in the fist place with it. When entanglement is initiated, there is no control over the state, so observers on one side won't know if the other side is affected. They also have no ability to change the state, so you can't just have a pattern to look for. The very question itself makes no sense because of these facts."
If I put a red ball and a green ball into a cardboard box, shake up the box and then in the pitch dark pull out a ball and put it into it's own box and then seal them both, how is that any different? I think that a young child would understand that one box has a red ball and one box has a green ball. I think a 5 year old knowing the initial conditions would understand when he opens his box and finds a green ball, that the other box must have a red ball inside. Why is it that the "quantum physicist" assumes that his box contains a ball that is both red and green and only when he opens it does the ball magically choose to be red? Doesn't it make a lot more sense that the physicist's ball was red the whole time? I understand pretending for the purpose of doing a math problem that it can be either one because it is an unknown but it sounds like you're saying that because you don't know which one is in the box, neither does reality define it. This seems like the stupidest possible assumption that anyone could make. Somebody please explain how the ball and it's color are any different from the particle and it's spin. If I tell you that the ball is magically red and green at the same time until you look at it, do you believe me? Honestly, I think you'd have to be an idiot to believe that.
So is there absolutely no way to manipulate a particle to create a reaction in its entangled partner's behavior? ( This could perhaps be debunked in the idea of causality being limited to the speed of light ) Theoretically, if possible, then you could use binary code measured over the axis, which you so very well explained(reversing the code on the receiving end of course because of the inversion). That would be immeasurable because of how fast they spin, but if signs that the "sending particle" was being manipulated (perhaps unnatural behaviors, or fluctuation in energy) you could have a computer write down the piece of binary code present in that instant on the other end, thus providing a code over a long distance, instantaneously. Sure would be interested in hearing back from somebody on the matter. It's been puzzling me for a while.
I think the idea of “observing it changes it’s state” can be confusing for some people. What that really means is that in order to observe something, you have to interact with it somehow. You can poke it and see what it feels like, you can blast it with a photon and see how it reflects off, the problem is that with things this small, something as simple as a photon interacting with it can completely change it. Think of trying to figure out if a tower of rocks will fall over or not, but all you are allowed to do to figure it out is poke it. You poking it might knock it over, or it might not. But if poking it did knock it over, you don’t know if it would have fallen over if you didn’t poke it to begin with.
Dont know why i watch these. I almost never understand. Ill keep watching though just in case.
I don't ""understand"" either -- unless you define ""understand" as meaning one sees it so one accepts it, even though it goes against what one feels ought to be the case. To me this stuff is a black box -- I don't follow the math and I would never think it up on my own -- but I do accept the conclusions as the best description we have.
To admit to not understanding is already a giant step towards understanding. It's those who think they know it all already that are in real trouble. I admire your statement!
I know there's most likely a flaw in my understanding. But how about this?
Use time as a way to measure a stream of entagled particles being collapsed or not collapsed as a binary code. The sender and receiver each start with large arrays of matched entangled particles. At determined intervals, let's say once per millisecond, the sender will either observe the first particle in the array, or it won't. If it does observe it, that collapses the superimposed state, the receiver will see the collapsed state, and we can call that a 1. If the sender decides not to observe then that particle will remain superimposed and we call that a 0. In case you are dealing with relative time differences, the first several bits in a communication can all be 1s (collapsations) to declare the frequency of each bit. So even if the receivers frequency is 1.5ms per bit, the 'read speed' can still be reliably established. So then each following bit will get a collapse or not get a collapse each time cycle and you can build a up a binary message. If this is at least theoretically possible, it seems that managing thousands or billions of individual entangled particles could be hard...
Where is the flaw in this idea?
set aside the act of observation ........... how and why do the separated particles still know what the other is doing at a distance ?......
If the limiting factor is determining who opened their box first to coerce the result you see, why can't you have multiple systems, where party A only every sends information through system A which party B will 100% know that party A is the first to open their box, and party B can reply through system B to party A.
I don't think you can send information by changing the state of one of the entangled particles because I think that changing the state breaks the entanglement.
So Paul to your example, couldn't that be overcome by my particle presenting with a complex pattern. For example if you made a device to manipulate your particle and you manipulate your particle in a binary format to correspond with a internet cat video could I not then wherever I am, record what my particle is doing and realize it's a cat video and thus deduce you "sent" me a cat video? I mean the other option would be the universe or something just randomly showed me a cat video. Which I think could be safely ruled out especially after I start watching Netflix via my particle.
I know sent is not the right word but English isn't set up to really make sense of this kind of thing. So please forgive me.
I was thinking about the same thing but couldnt think of how to say it. TY
He doesn't really address that. Maybe it's not really sending information or something. Although if you can break locality the speed of causality in cases like this becomes almost pointless I think. At least when asking how long after his particle moves will I see my particle move.
I don't think you fully understood, or maybe I don't understand what you are saying, as what you say doesn't help at all. It remains impossible to report an observation to others other than by "classical" means.
The things is, without the "key" from the "sender", the reading you will get of your "cat video" will be totally random, thus scrambled. You have no way of ID-ing it as a cat video.
@Frank It sounded to me like he was trying to say there isn't a way to tell if the particle is being random or being set by it's entangled partner until you use "classical" means to confirm it and there for it can't be used to "send" information.
I was trying to say that already knowing it was going to be used in the way I presented any complex and coherent pattern could safely be assumed to be a message because the likelihood of that randomness being a cat video followed by shows off Netflix would be so astronomically improbable it may as well be impossible.
If the entangled particles are both being observed and one is changed then the other must instantaneously change (faster than light). The observer who caused the change will have sent a faster than light signal to the other observer. Our inability to observe the experiment as it takes place from a universal standpoint has no bearing on the outcome. The appearance that the action seems to break the rules of causality is simply an illusion of perspective. There is no paradox because the action will have occurred prior to the reaction.
Humans are incredibly smart... perhaps one day they'll realize that it is not their observations that determine what takes place. It is the act itself.
"If the entangled particles are both being observed and one is changed then the other must instantaneously change (faster than light)" - There is no evidence that this can happen, or that this is the way it would work. There is no way to change one without breaking the entanglement. We can only observe one and know the state of the other.
This has already been proven that it is the “act itself” via double slit experiment.
i know I'm quite off topic but does anybody know a good site to watch newly released series online?
@Harlem Devon flixportal :P
@Koa Wallace thanks, I signed up and it seems to work :D Appreciate it !
Why do we call them entangled instead of SYNCHRONIZED? Wouldn't it be easier to explain that two particles maintain synchronization no matter the distance? Thus we expect to know the state of one by observing the other, and no communication between the two particles takes place beyond the initial entanglement?
I am confused. Why does it matter that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light? Isn't entanglement something other than information traveling between two particles? Couldn't we just say that the information doesn't travel anywhere, as both particles are essentially the same particle in two places?
I think particles can be entangled and separated but once you alter the spin of one it breaks the entanglement.
you set your particle to UP and then the other particle becomes DOWN. When you check them or report about them is irrelevant to their state. You altered your particle and by proxy the entangled particle.
Now change the particle again... in a pattern... like a Morse code. That is instant communication... faster than light.
How can you change the particle’s state?
I think when you try to alter one of the particles you break the entanglement.
The sheer fact that non locality is a thing, regardless of our ability to utilize it in a meaningful way, literally keeps me up at night. I wish I knew what it meant D:
You and me both dude.
Nice explanation.
Does that mean, entangled particles behave like pseudo random number generators with the same seed?
The results are the same at both positions but you can't manipulate the outcome of one to alter the state of the other.
I don't think the video really explains this but that's what I've deduced. When you entangle two particles, all they are doing is following the same predetermined pattern. They're not really affecting each other at all. When you change the pattern of one particle it doesn't do anything to the other particle and effectively the entanglement is broken.
A bit of a letdown if this is true.
Maybe if there are some universal rules about who looks first, it there were a system already set up, and if we were to somehow dicover it, like an universal tunning key. If we were to receive this instruction via conventional methods, will we be able to do faster than light comunication afterwords?
We have to figure out how to alter the state of one side of the system without breaking the entanglement.
You'd simply use a synchronization clock to denote who observes thier particle first and who second. A variation of this (in a none quantum world) is used everywhere today in circuits and telecommunications.
If the boxes are opened simultaneously or almost simultaneously and later the notes are compared then we can conclude that the information travelled from one point to other almost simultaneously much before any light signal . Comparing the notes later does not mean that your particle did not receive the information faster than light. Kindly enlighten me.
I don't think you can transmit information. I think all you can do is evaluate the initial entangled states but once you alter the state of one of the particles it breaks the entanglement.
Something that has been puzzling me for a while:
Take two entangled electrons, separate them, and place each into a packet. Repeat this a thousand times to have two "entangled" packets, each with a thousand electrons.
Gather two sets of a thousand packets each (numbered 1-1000), and then seperate the sets from one another. Each second after the separation, one packet in sequence is sent through a double slit and then hits a sensor. The sensor will then show either a wave or particle distribution. If we measure which slit the electrons pass through (or the spin for that matter), they will yield a particle distribution (since we "collapse" the wave equation), and if we don't, a wave distribution.
If I record the slit-passages for one full packet in the sequence, the wave equation for the corresponding entangled packet of electrons should also collapse, and thus yield a particle distribution. My partner, who has the entangled set of electrons, should then, without intefering with the system, see a particle distribution for the corresponding packet.
Each time I don NOT conduct a slit-measurement, it corresponds to a 0, each time I DO measure, it signifies a 1. Could I then not transmit a binary sequence to my partner via the collapse of wave-equations?
There should be some logical flaw (disregarding the impracticality of it), but the people I've spoken to haven't been able to help me yet.
Anything is possible, since quantic has multiple possibilities , what if the paradox interfere with gravity, is there any instrument to test gravity and what is the unit name?...
Why don't set in advance a precise time where you know that for example I will be the first to make a measurement?
Not that I really understand this and maybe my monkey brain just can't handle it, but wouldn't "setting a precise time" imply a standard reference frame for space/time? As I understand it, as soon as the two observers move apart there starts being a complex interrelationship where accelerations, decelerations, local gravity wells, etc. cause their time reference frames to diverge. Therefore there would be no shared "precise time". I only hope that Dr. Sutter will see this and address it.
As Paul was saying, I think it'd be more of an issue of being certain. When you check the particle/s, they appear random regardless. You'd never know if the other person definitely did open them or not - there's no 'message read'.
So the random quantum states could merely be that, random, without anyway of knowing for sure.
Exactly what Jayden said. Entanglement is great for cryptography - you know when signals are tampered with, but that's only after classical communication paths are followed.
I take my "box" across the room and watch as you open yours. Then I open mine. Problem solved.
Or how about we synchronize our watches while remaining stationary relative to one another?
It seems to me that, with precise enough equipment, the reporting of the outcome to one another afterward is irrelevant to the actual outcome measured.
@@smithbros1000 Taking your box across the room and "watch" you open that box is slower than light. Take your box across the galaxy and watch your partner opening it won't work.
"Paul asked me to do this experiment" (4:12) sounds like a perfect sentence to utter the next time someone walks into a room when I'm awkwardly entangled. Then again, I'd rather be up than down and Paul already nicked the up.
Hmm, you know what? I'd love to see someone do this experiment: measure loads of entangled particles on both ends... experimenter A gets to do a couple of measurements first and B has to be the first on several other measurements. Then at the end both A & B should have measure 50% ups and 50% downs. And then see if the first observer of each measurement had a nice 50%/50% split between the ups and downs as well. I'd totally expect most the unspectacular results, but I don't think it would be too easy to perform.
Triple entanglement and the recipient gets the noisy result of the sender's pair of entanglements via environmental connection. So can via vacuum the sender alter the sent bit by choice of noisy choice of correlation? Of course the sender has 2 dissimilar shit spreaders.
Thank you. This actually cleared up a lot of confusion with the simplification.
Glad I could help!
If two synchronized watches instad of electrons would be used, sent apart, then the same happens - looking at one watch you know what the other one is showing. What is so weird about it? It only tells us that after entanglement both obey the same rules
I've been thinking about this for years and the way I see it, the only way for communication to actually take place would be to manipulate particle. For example, if you agreed on an exact time with the recipient to make their measurement and you were to flip the particle in a particular way, you could send them 1 bit of information.
You literally just restated the idea I had. If you had a protocol that would establish a schedule of when each system should check a given entangled particle, you could send a bit FTL. The protocol itself would have to travel at light speed, but essentially I wonder if the "phone call" can happen before the probably wave is collapsed as opposed to after.
@@JethroTClampet I think flipping the particle breaks the entanglement.
Can you change the spin of your electron and "cause" the distance electron to change states?
yea probably. and all i ever heard was that changes are instantaneous.... so i don't understand why That change can not be used to send binary signals ....... you can use 2 pairs of 2 entangled particles one for 0 one for 1 and assume any change in the state of the designated particles is a transmittance of the binary digit associated with it. using 4 particles, 2 for sending 2 for receiving could allow u to communicate across the universe instantaneously unless the changes with entangled particles do not happen instantaneously but all i ever hear is that they are instantaneous. ( bandwidth would depend on how fast you can change and measure there changes.)
So if I understand it correctly entanglement is not FTL communication cos even if both sender and receiver have set a binary sequence for signifying communication the receiver will never be sure if its actually communication or lucky dice roll until the sender come over and confirms?
Exactly, and once you observe the particle the entanglement is broken since the state is determined. If you start wiggling your particle the partner doesn't "know" about it.
Is it possible, at the subatomic scale that there is another reality this electron moves in and out of?
Yes and I've proved it. OK I can't back that up.
But why can't I force my particle into a specific spin? Does the entanglement break?
Not saying it's possible, just wondering.
Exactly - entanglement is about measurement. If you start shoving your particle's spin around, the entanglement breaks.
Hold on though, I thought the experiment was not wondering who opened the box first. I thought it was taking 2 entangled particles, say 2 up, and separating them by say, a light hour, so orbiting an outer planet (insert Uranus joke here). Then, you know that you and the other particle are both UP, you change yours to down. With entanglement, the other should change to DOWN and it should do so instantly. Then you can keep changing it and you have a sort of FTL Morse code machine.
What if each person set a schedule for checking so they’d know who’s looking and when on each end without communicating classically?
Keep these videos coming please.
I plan on it!
I can't help but think of this situation (problem) as being just like so many others throughout history where all the "experts" were completely convinced that they were right and staked their careers and reputations on declaring something can't possibly be achieved, only to have that impossible thing be achieved in the near future. We'll figure this one out too. Or we'll be "helped". lol
Hello, please help me understand:
I understand your point about classical communication being necessary however the theory still holds, that entanglement transmits information faster than the speed of light they proved that in studies, most recent in China.
For example, take your original example but instead of box A and B both being on earth, move box B to Alpha Centuri. After sending radio waves back and forth, 4 years each way, we decided to communicate with entanglment exactly at 1pm Jan 1st 2420 ce. You send me a Morse code from the entanglement spins. I knew exactly in time when to look at my box B of entangled particles I didn't need to wait for your classical communication speed of light.
So it's transmitting information through space faster than the speed of light right?
I don't think you can transmit any information over this.
This disregards the proof of Bell's Inequalities: there are no local hidden variables. In other words, there's more than simple correlations happening. Remember, if you're using "coincidence counters" in your experiment than you are measuring coincidence (aka correlations). The circular reasoning seems apparent when phrased like this: "We can only prove a particle is entangled with another particle if we can compare it to the entangled particle".
I speculate FTL communication, if possible, would work something like this:
binary 1 = particle is entangled
binary 0 = particle is no longer entangled
For some stream of particles the measurement would be compared against background noise, not to its correlated particle(s). This does not seem to violate having anything travelling faster than the speed of light, however, it might be time we investigate our understanding of causality at the quantum level.
If the state to which Quantum particle is going to resolved is a function of Observer, then Observing the 2 particles in a Quantum entangled system at a given time is a paradox. Was it destined to resolve in that state or was it the Observation that resolved it?
How do you know if the particles are instantaneous entangled if you have to confirm that the states of the two particles through observation and the use of sub-light communication to confirm the states?
so the act of measuring confuses the communication layer until you classically compare notes to determine if entanglement was a byproduct of measurement and not initiated...
Ok they are entangled, but if you could change the up and down at will, would you not be able to change the others up or down and send a binary signal?
I think when you change one it breaks the entanglement.
What if: You give some of this theoretical boxes to your friend and send him far away. You have the pairs of this boxes. You agree that you open up a box at an agreed time, and he opens his at t+some small time. If you get an up you agree that you press a button which sends a start signal in light speed to your friend. If he gets a down he starts to play some music, so this down electron is his trigger. So before the trigger signal gets there from your button press, you already triggered the music to start with the entangled electron. I know it's not real communication, but you could trigger an event faster than light? Or at least you can get an almost certain info what is happening far away, faster than light?
The issue is that you don't *know* if you're friend opened the box at the correct time. You would have to wait for normal communication channels to make the verification.
I wonder what would happen if the two particals were in a singularity
Quick question is Quantum entanglement and synchronicity the same?
What if though, Person A influences Particle A at set time, and Person B observes Particle B at a set time after Person A, and Person A sends a message in binary. There was no side channel communication to ask "Did you send me a message?", but the message received is "Come here Watson, I need you?".
You can't know that Person A or Person B actually did the messaging correctly at the right time, and some rules of quantum mechanics prohibit you from constructing entangled states that tell you without normal communication.
@@PaulMSutter Does altering the entangled state of one particle break the entanglement?
So many people get this wrong and you are one of them. Sorry. The question of who looked first is irrelevant and can easily be planned ahead of time. The real problem is that you cannot know if the other person looked or not. This would require many copies of the quantum state. Because you cannot build a probability distribution graph based on a sample size of one. The problem is that it is against the laws of nature to create a 100% perfect copy-a clone of a quantum state. And right there is where EVERYONE gets it wrong. We don’t need perfect clones to accomplish the task. In fact, we only need it to be greater than 50% accurate. And the good news is that we can and do create less than perfect quantum copies. We also don’t need the entire system to have 5-sigma accuracy. The internet works just fine without 5-sigma. Quantum computers are only 97-99% accurate. So yes, faster than light communication is, at least in theory, possible. Forget all this causality nonsense also. All of quantum mechanics violates causality.
Are you saying that if you quantum entangle particles and separate them that you can modify the spin of one of the particles and the other will change as well to follow what you changed?
does entanglement of particles have to take place when particles are in close proximity or are there ways to entangle particles far from one another? every example I've seen has a pair of entangled particles created by a single event which are then separated and measured at a distance. the "spooky action at a distance" arises when one particle is measured and the other one behaves consistently when measured even if the particles are light-years apart. the particles have to start out together to be entangled, right? just curious whether that's pretty much a hard and fast rule or just the way people commonly make these physics videos.
Good question, it's on the list!
Perhaps the big bang quantum entangled us all.
Do you charge for renting an electron ?
Nah you can borrow it, but I need it back next Tuesday.
Massimo O'Kissed 4:30
Interesting. Maybe write a Report on Losing your Mind.
can't you just have one side be opening the box first all the time, with a delay on the second box by a fraction of a trillionth of a second in delay, and use two very precise clocks based on decay of particals to calibrate it and time when to open the box on the distant end. Also using relativity to calculate the time dilation and synchronize the clocks?
I'm no scientist but I have to say that a lot of people are asking the same question as myself. Why not TFL communication. The answers given by others, as with this video make no sense... you seem to just go back to, it just can't be done without classical communication.
I think communications would require us to encode and alter the spin of the particle by us which breaks the entanglement.
I THINK IT IS ABSURD TO THINK THERE IS NOTHING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, THAT IS CONSIDERING OUR LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF TOTAL UNIVERSE PHYSICS, WE JUST HAVEN'T DISCOVERED WHAT IT IS YET. THE SPEED OF LIGHT HITS TOGETHER AT 2X THE SPEED OF LIGHT ...MASS....ENERGY IN A COLLIDER.
I think we can think whatever we want but I think we also need to honor what has been tested and proven.
How do particles become entangled? What is the process that entangles particles?
Great question, it's on the list!
Thanks spaceman! Great video 👍
Thanks!
So presumably you can't change the spin of a particle because if you could 'flip' one of the electrons wouldn't the corresponding particle also flip thus sending a signal?
Of course you can change the spin. When you look, it breaks the entaglement.
Can't we have a 2 particles send as far away from each other eg in Asia and America have a computer send a message from a place exactly the same distance away from both particles eg Europe. Computer in Europe send a message for both of the particles to be looked at; signal travels gets there at the same time, is being measured and both places send their results back to the middle of the results get back in the same time and one up and one down we know they communicated faster then light. Am I right?
What if it was decided that people on earth open the box before people on mars and the when the Martians (still us) open the box they know what earth got. Now take that and take to another galaxy. It may take years to get there but it will other galaxies people will know whenever they want what the Milkyway galaxy got. That might be useful for something? Tell me if I'm wrong, please!
What if after checking notes we separated particles one on earh another on mars, up is 1 down is 0, and here is communication?
Imagine a device that is kind of photo camera, but matrix is made of particles, and imagine a device #2(lets call it photo receiver) where I keep particles too, so particles in camera and particles in receiver are entangled. Now, lets take camera and go to another half of the universe and take a photo, camera changes spins of the particles to represent image, now, I am on earth boot up my receiver. so particles on my receiver are going to have spins that match spins of the camera and thus I get the image faster than speed of light? I wonder if I am missing something here? I assume, camera can change spins of particles in the matrix tho.
I don't think you can change the state. If you change the spin you break the entanglement.
If one particle decides to change its spin from up to down, when will the other particle know to flip from down to up ? Does that signal travel at the speed of light too ?
No, once you make the measurement the entanglement is broken. You just have a couple random particles.
Hear me out, consciousness the use of would be intaneous communication. Communication that couldn't be hacked or intercepted. Wouldn't be held to either Comological principles or Quantum Mechanical. All you need is a tuner that could get a mind to vibrate at the right frequency maybe. Science fiction ???
Well, check upon delayed entanglement swapping (which is not totally controlled yet, but hints at this FTL communication) since the recipients receives a pair of particles instead of just 1 as your video shows, the recipients measurement can determines if the sender casted entanglement in a single batch of particles without the need of a classical channel
I ask the spaceman this: How does an object with mass warp “the fabric” of space time ? Shouldn’t that fabric need mass or something to be affected by the gravity of said object? What in the fabric of space time is being acted upon for that to happen?
Good question! I encourage you to watch my series on General Relativity. The word "fabric" is just a convenient metaphor. The math teaches us that mass/energy simple *are* distortions in spacetime itself.
Paul M. Sutter thank you! I’ll watch that video and all your others! Thanks for taking the time to answer
@@PaulMSutter So all we are is space-time distortions in the wind?
Engage quantum entanglement drive, warp factor sev.....ah, dammit, nevermind
Yeah let's just go get a sandwich instead.
I (think I) understand the distinction you’re trying to make. Here we see communication as one type of potential application for quantum entanglement, even it doesn’t work because causality like you said.
I think the keyword here is « application ». We could not send signals faster than light with two entangled particles, true. But what if we had (keeping an example of 2 potential states in mind-up and down) 5 of these electrons instead of one.
In this situation, if I want to encode something with a password demandant on these particles’ state.
Ok nevermind, password verification and confirmation would still break causality.
But I guess my overall point about application keeps some sense to it - maybe we need to think outside the box to figure out how we may use entanglement.
I think this can be overcome. We just have to agree on a certain point in time at which you open your box and I can open it after that point in time.
The question that comes to my mind regarding entanglement is why does this have to apply to quantum mechanics, and why does communication have to come after the “unveiling” of the particles? As an example, let’s say we have different colored pencils, a green and a red. We put each in an identical box and move around the boxes so we don’t know which box has which pencil. You then take one box and travel to Alpha Centauri. At that point you open up your box and see you have a red pencil, so know that I have a green. The chances were 50/50 before the boxes were opened, but now you know with100 percent certainty that I have a green pencil. The information has not been transmitted between us, but that’s not relevant, because we set up pre-existing conditions. If you have red, I have green, and vice versa. We also know that whoever has green is “it”, and a certain game of tag has commenced. This information has also not been transmitted, but doesn’t have to be, because the rules were pre-arranged. Quantum Mechanics and the limitations of light speed are not addressed because they don’t have to be.
So if I have two entangled particles. Knowing they are entangled in a system, right? Then I start to receive a signal that translates to a personal letter from you to me, about things we are both familiar with.... That's just not possible and totally random because information can't be sent faster than the speed of light.... I think you're wrong.
When you try to encode a message over one of the particles you break the entanglement.
@@russellneitzke4972 nope.
@@TheHighSpaceWizard There is still hope for faster than light communications I just don't think quantum entanglement is the way. Perhaps we can focus on inter-dimensional communications.
@@russellneitzke4972 eh. We're already making quantum computers our next big step in data processing. Communications will naturally follow. Quantum is the computing and internet of the future.
@@TheHighSpaceWizard Yes I like the progress there and the leak that google has a quantum supercomputer that can circumvent all present security measures instantly. I just don't think it's faster than light.
Q. How do you entangle two particles ?
It's on the list!
Split a photon. It sort of presents a whole other problem of entangling particles over great distances. To date it has only been done at a distance of 30km.
What if you can change the spin of one entangled particle
I'm keeping the electron.
...fine.
So what if Alice is running a two slot experiment while Bob decides to either observe it not observe a bunch of particles in a sequence. Would Alice see the interference pattern flash on and off?
No. Not how it works.
If Bob uses his particles for a double slit experiment Alice would not be able to tell so by looking at her particles. She could even use her particles for her very own double split experiment. Yet both could measure the spin of each particle and would get spin up or down 50% of the time and they could tell "aha, Alice/Bob got the opposite spin for that one".
If the particle is entangled or not does not matter to the double slit experiment. Only thing that matters is "did you see the particle going through a specific slit yes or no"? But that property "it got through the right/left slit" is not an entangled property. The "entangled particle" could get through a different slit if you set up a second double slit experiment.
Damn, you got Patreon and stuff, but you won't even let me keep one electron? I have to give it back?? It's the smallest thing ever!
Dr. Sutter, that's not nice 😠
I am pretty confident that entanglement can't be used for superluminal communication... However, I propose two ways this 'might' be achievable:
At each node, where the entangled particles reside, perhaps set up an environment where the particles can only both be up, or both down. No up/down, down/up variance.
If that isn't possible, making an entangled "if/then/else web" of particles *might* be able to tell each node what their states are... However, you will need a way to re-entangle the particle web after each bit of information is sent, because it would have collapsed.
Purely speculation, just something I've thought about... First time I've articulated it.
Perhaps we can use the entangled particles as a carrier wave like how radio caries sound over it.
@@russellneitzke4972 The problem is verifying you got the right info. We can treat it like a UDP stream and just accept whatever on the receiving end, but the only way to verify the integrity of the qubit sent is by luminal means.
We can defeat this requirement if we lock sets of entangled particles to only down or up, and treat the state of up-down or down-up as error correction when verifying the state of the other node. It's not as reliable, but it can help better the confidence in the opposing node state.
You don't get the quantum processing abilities this way, but you get to utilize spook action and binary.
Timing to read the states can be maintained by an alternating pair of entangled particles. The hz rate would be the rate at which they flip.
I would love to work in a lab to put my ideas to experiment, haha.
@@russellneitzke4972 it's not as reliable as some of our other error correction methods, like a CRC... To clarify that statement.
Schrodinger's cat; the concept itself assumes a predictability, ie; a future time viewing device. In this imitated reality we must assume that the universe itself is functioning like a computer to solve the outcome. Although such a thing may seem a pipe dream, it's actually been done more than once. I can note the Montauk project, also a Time Warner project to see traffic in Portland that ended up seeing everything about 12 hours ahead, or the fantastic story of Al Bielek, the Navy Sailor who disappeared over 200 years into the future from the U.S.S. Hammond. He reported that some intelligent beings had helped put him there during the dematerialization of the ship. Witnesses on the pier describe the ship surrounded in a green oblong light just before it vanished, later to reappear just off the coast of France where it had to be towed back to the shipyard.
The problem of field unification is the real issue here, to solve faster than light principles of any kind. For this I can help as I have discovered field unification with formula and predictive proof since 1996 when first published on the web, and in 2003 when copyrighted in my unpublished manuscript "Infinite Universe". My works predicted many things including the exact geometry necessary to explain type 1.5 superconductivity not modeled until years later on supercomputer by an Egor Babaev. In short, the twisted light wave is just one thing that proved my theory and is key here since by twisting charge (the sum of poles) using a 3 phase directional mechanism of some kind, always running a carrier wave to produce a continued fractal, is how all faster than light transmitters and or transceivers can function. In the files of Rex Research I found an RF version of a faster than light transceiver, while lately the record was set at 310x light speed using laser light. Certainly this can be vastly improved. For example, a special material charged with 500kv pulses around a fiber optic cable can see through solid objects, and is therefore of high enough amplitude to cut through interference you might get using other methods. A professor Omynyrov working at a SanDiego University discovered this many years ago, but like many other things was buried or turned into a classified project by the army or navy. Ask me the formula for unification. It's simple.
Hello Sir!
Thank for the ongoing awesome content!
I recently posted an idea on Fraser Cain's channel, and he has suggested that you might be better able to refute it :)
Basically my assumption is that a singularity is pulling in space as well as matter, so no infinite singularity ever exists because the addition of infinite space being pulled in too cancels out the infinities.
I will paste the message here, I hope you can figure out my nonsense :p
"
Hi Fraser, I am interested in your thoughts and position of the idea that there is a universe is within a singularity. I have put a great deal of thought in to this, fitting it to a few paragraphs is challenging.
My key assumption is that black holes would be pulling in space as well as matter, I believe this is why we currently have issues with infinite density at the singularity; we’re failing to take in to account the space that is also being pulled in to create a place for that matter to exist without invoking infinities.
Furthermore, If more space is pulled in than matter, the interior of the singularity will grow to expansive levels with very little matter to spread around, akin to inflation.
The system inside the event horizon also can’t move energy outside of the event horizon anymore either, it can only be moved from one system to another within the singularity.
Sound familiar?
When the intake of matter in to our black hole stalls (like the original merger of two massive stars) space expansion is then the dominant force consumed by the black hole, so internal expansion dominates.
I believe that if particle/antiparticle pair theories are correct, then the Schwarzschild radius should grow as the surviving particle adds to the reach of the singularity without adding to it’s mass.
Internally this might manifest as every location within the singularity expanding away from everything else as more space is created, and furthermore, a bigger surface area of the singularity means it will access even more virtual particles., increasing the production of space exponentially. Internally, expansion would appear to be getting faster.""
So internally it will appear that extra space is appearing everywhere from nothingness at an ever increasing rate, but externally it's just the boundary of the event horizon growing and pulling in more space. Does that make any sense? There must be an equation that applies to the expansion of space over distances which could be also described by an external boundary getting larger, and I believe that's dark energy.
1) A black hole can't get bigger by consuming space. Its size is determined by its mass.
2) You forget the time dimension. Imagine Earth pulling a bit of spacetime into its center, but every second, that space is left behind in the past. In the end the space inside Earth is a bit denser (and time a bit stretched, because that's how it works), but it does not "accumulate" over time.
I had an experience, proving our brains do communicate from thousands miles away...my grandma called my name at 1am...the moment she was dying...it woke me up.
I shot straight up in bed at 1am in Portland Oregon...she was in Palm Springs with her daughter who confirmed she had called my name out at that very moment.
So this is something I've always wondered about. With binary star systems, what is the effect on the partner star when the other goes supernova? For example, does the radiation blow away the outer layers of the star, increase nuclear reactions, etc.?
Fun question, it's on the list!
Why not use the surrounding “Dark Matter/Negative Energy”, that fills the void which everyone calls emptiness, as the delivery component for communications? If our universe is interconnected everywhere to everything always then wouldn't a message be received instantly everywhere once it is sent? "Instant Communication"....
Example string
Place a string from here to any location in the universe and keep tension on it (imagine the string weighs nothing and cannot stretch/deform in any way).
Cause: tug on the string
Effect: the individual holding the string at the other end would instantly feel a tugging sensation
Example stick
Place a stick between here and any location in the universe (imagine the stick weighs nothing and cannot stretch/deform in any way).
Cause: push on the stick
Effect: the individual holding the stick at the other end would instantly feel a pushing sensation
Distance between Earth and Moon = 1.3 Light Seconds [299,792 km * 1.3 sec = 389,729 km].
Distance between Earth and Sun = 8 Light Minutes [299,792 km * (8*60) sec = 143,900,160 km].
Distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri = 4.4 Light Years [299,792 km * (4.4 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60) sec = 41,598,658,252,800 km].
Tugging/pushing action on Earth would instantly register at any given location in the universe and not take any time whatsoever.
We need to stop thinking that void equals nothing. The Universe has no void! All space in this universe is filled to the rim with positive and negative energy like a glass filled with water. If an object is placed in the glass of water the water is then displaced and every point within the water in that glass registers a change.
We cant increase the speed of a communication that uses waves past the speed of light, but if we use the existing string of “Dark Matter/Negative Energy” particles between sender and receiver like the stick example mentioned above then we would be able to send a message faster than the speed of light (indirectly).
Light travels 2 seconds from earth to moon. How if there is a long string from earth to moon? If you pull the string, the A and B ends of the string have the same motion/time.
because the string isnt moving the entire distance from the earth to the moon. If i had a mile long string and i pulled it it only moved how far i pulled the string it didnt travel 1 mile.
That won't work. Pulling the string in either direction is subject to "causality", which cannot travel faster than light. Pulling on a string causes a wave through the string, and it's the same in principle as a light wave.
JethroTClampet not even close.
Since the day of mine exploded on my shop I started hearing voice and I suspect something beyond life had happened and even now is still hearing voice in my head and had no idea what is really happened to my illness even most doctor diagnosis me but none is corrected
If we had a faster-than-light communication system that was still in some way limited by distance, lets say the light passes between a wormhole between Earth and Mars, so for example we could communicate instantly with the planet Mars but there was still a time delay if communicating with the planet Jupiter, would this still break the rules of causality? Is how time is experienced the same throughout our solar system?
But quantum entanglement isn't dependent on communication. I know that an up electron entangled partner is down. I don't need to have an observer communicate it to me. So at least the communication between the entangled electrons is faster than light. How they communicate however no one knows.
Are you saying that if the spin changes on one particle that the other particle spin changes too?
@@russellneitzke4972 Yes if the two particles are entangled. Even if they are light years apart. That's my understanding of it.
@@sinebar I suppose the question for me is can we change the spin or is the change in spin a natural feature?
@@russellneitzke4972 I think you can change the spin but it will change the spin of the other entangled particle to the opposite spin.
@@sinebar As long as it's consistent I think we have the potential for quantum communications.
Makes no sense to me. I thought quantum entanglement moves faster than light which many scientists said now they're saying it's not true.
Ok, here’s an engineering ftlc question: if you had a screw 2 or more light years long and you rotated it, wouldn’t the entire screw rotate at the same time?
This is fales. You having to communicate your findings at non ftl speeds dosent negate the fact entangled particals do communicated ftl. All that your example has shown is that humans can't communicate ftl.
Thank you! Why is this so hard for people to understand?
It sounds like you can't change the spin of one without breaking the entanglement making quantum entanglement communications irrelevant.
@@russellneitzke4972 so far this is true or now.
Hey, I have a theory regarding special relativity and entangled particles as a form of binary communication through time. You entangle two particles. Keep one particle in a lab and place the other particle in a particle accelerator at 99.9% the speed of light. If you were to keep the particle in the accelerator for let's say one hour, there would be a time dilation of one hour between the particles. Would that entangled particle from the accelerator then be able to affect the original particle in the lab from an hour in the past? If it could, we could use the spins of the entangled particles as a form of binary to send information through time. Comment your thoughts and opinions
Can the spin be changed at will?
Well let's say you have a chain of entangled particles and you communicate before hand a scenario such as if the particle is up you open the box next to it if the particle is down you skip that box and go to the next box in the chain? At the end of the expirement both sides should arrive at the same conclusion correct? So how would causality play out? The only way for this expirement to play out is for both parties to receive the same data at roughly the same time regardless of distance. That is a form of communication isn't it?
But more importantly quantum spin doesn't just get measured in the up down state it gets measured in an all direction. State. So let's say the initiator of the experiment measures in the up and down state on one box in the chain but then alternates between left right measurements.
Now on the other side of the expirement the person only measures in the up down state? How would that work I mean you open the box expecting a particle spin either in the up or down spin rate but it's aligned in the left right configuration? Wouldn't that create the conditions of a basic binary single faster than the speed of light? I mean the receiver is either in the up down configuration or its not? You'd know the other person opened the box before at that point.
Sorry, I'm keeping the electron box cause friend lend permanently, now you can borrow it back
Brad Pitt opened the box and got Gwyneth Paltrow's severed head...
quantum entanglement can be manipulated using negative energy derived from phased Eeyore particles.
A google search of phased Eeyore particles returned It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search
Ok, here is the thing. What if I open my box, and no matter what I get from my measurement, I FORCE my electron to have a spin up? Will this cause your electron to have spin down automatically? If so, we have just created one way communication device.
I feel like most of these videos leave out the idea of ignoring the measured spin state, etc, and just using the question "is the particle still in a superposition" (based on pre-arranged timing) as the 1 or 0. as i understand it, the ability to CHECK whether a particle is still in a superposition or not requires that it be alongside its partner (defeating the purpose).
What will happen if we both open the box simultaneously?
Everything goes dark. Then you wake up in the back of a horse-drawn wagon. Somebody says “Hey, you’re finally awake...”
I am still skeptical. There is still a 50% chance that information was transmitted FTL. If you had protocol or handshake that would pre-schedule the exact moments to check the entangled particle you can get around this problem. The protocol itself would have to travel at light speed, but the "phone call" where information is shared could happen before the entanglement as opposed to after.
If you had the ability to switch whether the particle is "up" or "down" then why couldn't you transmit some sort of binary communication?
I think when you switch it you break the entanglement. I asked Dr. Sutter this on his show last night.
How about quantum tunneling? Can one use it to communicate FTL?
Nope, that just determines the position of an object the next time you look :/
Someone claims they sent information 4 times to the speed of light with quantum tunneling in the 1990s, but there are many skeptics.
So, entangled paricles don't break cause and effect (causality), but do break spacetime aka relativity (locality)?
Every time I see your videos I wish you were my teacher and listen to your lessons for hours...
That's it! And thanks, I appreciate that :)
How is this different from Einstein's Left and Right glove example? That is, if I ship you a glove from a set, you open the box and see a left glove, my box has the right glove. No magic there.
Brian Street The magic is the glove isn't "right" or "left" until you open the box. And the act of opening the box and seeing my box is a "right" *forces* yours to be a left.
Einstein though the glove was a "right" and we just didn't know that until we opened the box (local hidden variable), but that isn't true. The reason we know this is because of Bell's inequality.
Can’t it still be used as a signal? Then even more complicated sets of signals like Morse code. The problem is that it would need to be observed or monitored at all times to keep the same spin intact. All because of the 50/50 problem
Isn't is possible to flip the spin of 1 particle, therefore changing the other? Is there no method in which 1 bit of information could be worked out ahead of time.
"if my measurement I take every second changes then it's time to attack" sort of thing.
I do realize quantum mechanics isn't as simple as this, it's just as deep an understanding as I've been able to hold onto for any length of time.
I think flipping the spin breaks the entanglement but I'll ask Dr. Sutter this on his show tonight.
@@russellneitzke4972 ah interesting. I know I was wrong because a lot smarter people than myself have considered these things, but I'm interested in why it is that I was wrong.
Based on reading these comments, the video maker is assuming the audience knows a lot about Quantum Entanglement. Let me know if this is right or wrong:
"You can't communicate FTL with QE because you can't communicate at all in the fist place with it. When entanglement is initiated, there is no control over the state, so observers on one side won't know if the other side is affected. They also have no ability to change the state, so you can't just have a pattern to look for. The very question itself makes no sense because of these facts."
If I put a red ball and a green ball into a cardboard box, shake up the box and then in the pitch dark pull out a ball and put it into it's own box and then seal them both, how is that any different?
I think that a young child would understand that one box has a red ball and one box has a green ball.
I think a 5 year old knowing the initial conditions would understand when he opens his box and finds a green ball, that the other box must have a red ball inside.
Why is it that the "quantum physicist" assumes that his box contains a ball that is both red and green and only when he opens it does the ball magically choose to be red?
Doesn't it make a lot more sense that the physicist's ball was red the whole time?
I understand pretending for the purpose of doing a math problem that it can be either one because it is an unknown but it sounds like you're saying that because you don't know which one is in the box, neither does reality define it.
This seems like the stupidest possible assumption that anyone could make.
Somebody please explain how the ball and it's color are any different from the particle and it's spin.
If I tell you that the ball is magically red and green at the same time until you look at it, do you believe me?
Honestly, I think you'd have to be an idiot to believe that.
So is there absolutely no way to manipulate a particle to create a reaction in its entangled partner's behavior? ( This could perhaps be debunked in the idea of causality being limited to the speed of light )
Theoretically, if possible, then you could use binary code measured over the axis, which you so very well explained(reversing the code on the receiving end of course because of the inversion). That would be immeasurable because of how fast they spin, but if signs that the "sending particle" was being manipulated (perhaps unnatural behaviors, or fluctuation in energy) you could have a computer write down the piece of binary code present in that instant on the other end, thus providing a code over a long distance, instantaneously.
Sure would be interested in hearing back from somebody on the matter. It's been puzzling me for a while.
I think manipulating the particle breaks the entanglement.
Wow!!