Communicating Faster Than the Speed of Light
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- Today, getting information from one place to another is a far cry from the days of the Pony Express. In the future, will we be able to send information at faster than light speeds? And does that mean we'll be able to send information... to the past? From Google Fiber to Quantum Entanglement, Jonathan Stickland explores the future of high speed data on Fw:Thinking.
Subscribe to Fw:Thinking:
www.youtube.com...
For the audio podcast, blog and more, visit the Fw:Thinking website:
www.fwthinking.com
Fw:Thinking on Twitter: / fwthinking
Jonathan Stickland on Twitter: / jonstrickland
Fw:Thinking on Facebook: / fwthinking01
Fw:Thinking on Google+: plus.google.co...
At 3:33 you mentioned the information you would send through entanglement would arrive before you would even send it, creating a paradox. Actually, your message would arrive at exactly at the same time as you would send it, since entanglement would allow you, like you said at 2:45 to 3:10, to communicate instantaneously and not to communicate in the past !
Let's say you had an entangled detonation device to blow up the sun, as soon as you would blow up the sun, it would instantly blow up according to quantum mechanics, but from the earth the sun would still shine for another 8 minutes since the light from the explosion will take 8 minutes to reach us on earth. Now although you know the sun blew up less than 8 minutes ago, you would still see the sun how it looked before, but seing the sun as it was in the past doesn't mean you can prevent the past from happening as it already happened, the sun did explode ! This is why there is no paradox here!
In addition, can we still talk about speed when something is instantaneous ? I see speed as the motion something travels at trough space, but if you go from one point to another instantaneosly you have no speed, therefore you're not breaking Eintsein's speed limit ! But this is another subject and only my personnal opinion :) !
TitusIV I totally agree with you:)
TitusIV Unfortunately it's not that simple. I don't completely understand it myself, but the fact that the universe isn't static and is expanding makes what you're saying impossible.
EnigmaHood Really? The fact that the universe isn't static and is expanding has nothing to do with his explanation. Think again.
Romain Huon Please don't be rude. I'm simply repeating what I read on a website that explains why FTL communication violates causality. His explanation sounds like it makes sense, and I don't pretend to understand why he's wrong; but the website mentioned that the expansion of the universe is one of the reasons why simultaneity violates causality.
Romain Huon Here's the website that tries to explain it, physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52249/how-does-faster-than-light-travel-violate-causality
nothing is faster than my wife realizing I went in the kitchen.
Video starts at 2:42
Thank you
Thanks
Yeah but does it tho
One hurdle that nobody should argue against: The particles that you entangle, they themself cannot travel faster than light.
So you will have to wait at least 150,000 years before it gets to the other side of the galaxy, and then you can do the experiment and find out if it is possible to transmit information faster than light via quantum-entanglement.
why not just send the particle across the room and then find out if you can transmit information faster than light via quantum-entanglement.
@@neiljohnson7914 Because the distance is so short, that we cannot tell if it is merely "faster than light", or if it is instantaneous.
@@i_am_aladeen Wrong. It's been done already with such short distances.
its not really traveling to the past though so theirs no paradox.
Thank you!
"or if Jawa's had sold it for scrap parts".... and with that... SUBSCRIBED
the biggest problem with using quantum entanglement for communication (which btw is used very well in the Ender series of books) is that interacting with them destroys the entanglement :( so while we could theoretically entangle a MASSIVE number of particles and then use them... as each is manipulated the waveform would collapse and that particle would cease to be useful for any further transmission of information.
EXACTLY.
The Ender series of books is Fiction. It didn't actually happen.
I dont get that last part, using quantum entanglement as a way of communication doesnt interrupt with the speed limit of light. I dont really get that paradox, the universe could be one concience in time. Its just the travel between distance that we make as time, as he said it took 14 minutes for the information to get to earth. But the moment it landed was the same in time as on earth, and that would quantum entanglement not in my mind interrupt despite the distance. But just a Danish guy :)
"But the moment it landed was the same in time as on earth"
Not according to the general theory of relativity.
Sub space is just that, the spectrum of nano frequencies, or energy signiture's.
💚💚💚💚💚💚
But like a phone in a building with no phone signal, due to obstruction's. This is a example and analogy of normal instance's of our environment. When tvs use to get static on air wave tv, or how radio signals go further away then internet signal's.
It is due to how the signals interact with the environment.
If one could easily communicate signals through a mountain, that's a basic example of sub space communication. When you take it out further then that to the extreme and true sub space level's. This idea of either receiving and sending sub space signal's to outer space. For long range interaction, would be possible due to the effects of that process.
It seams like internet and 5g as it is, is going in the wrong direction of progress. Yes theirs more data, but their is more static, or obstruction's. That being said, radio had less obstruction's and less data.
Real progress should go towards subspace communication. As their would be way more less static and way more less obstruction's. Theirs a way for plenty of data to work through this spectrum of subspace, we just got to find it.
Maybe it's through the interaction's of nano microscopic structure's, that the signiture's are transmitted through between everything.
In which signal's bypass normal matter, as there would be less substances in the way. I like how everything is basically matter and energy, within density of reality, it has substance, or essense.
There's no such thing as subspace.
From my point of view, quantum entanglement is the future of communication. It's seems that nothing could be faster than light, but maybe the entanglement is not a transmition, it may be like a window of a whole in spacetime or something like that. I'm speaking without being a physicist.
No, you can't use quantum entanglement to communicate faster than light m.th-cam.com/video/0xI2oNEc1Sw/w-d-xo.html video made by person who actually IS an expert in quantum mechanics.
Huh?
How fitting to hire Kane for discussing topics related to time travel.
HOW IS THIS NOT THE MOST POPULAR TH-cam CHANNEL!!!
As soon as he said Spooky I knew he was going to talk Quantum computers. As a theory, it is an amazing idea for an interplanetary/galactic internet system.
Quantum computers have nothing to do with quantum entaglement
I'm tiptoeing on eggshells here but from what I can gather from the reports of late, transmitting information (i.e. communicating) faster than the speed of light is indeed possible. I can hear the naysayers already flexing their fingers just eager to type a dissertation arguing with me. But, first, please consider two things.
First, per the article linked here (www.livescience.com/49028-farthest-quantum-teleportation.html) it is well established that information can be instantly communicated for at least 15.5 miles.
Second, when someone says "traveling faster than the speed of light" there is an implication that something containing mass is the traveler. And that, as far as we know, IS impossible. BUT, information is not mass. Can we agree on that? If so, then the argument about faster than light travel being impossible doesn't really apply with regard to communication - at least insofar as quantum entanglement is concerned. This is a subtle difference, but if you can put mass and information into separate camps, I believe the naysayers may not be quite so convinced that no other opinion than their own disbelief is true.
Having said all of that, I do wonder that in light (pardon the pun) of the proof of quantum entanglement being faster than light, if perhaps there is another time measurement we have yet to discover - the time it takes entangled protons to communicate. This would certainly be logical if such a delay is discovered. It would set an entirely new precedent for science. In honor of Albert Einstein, I humbly propose we call it spooky speed.
Nay. Teleportation is not instantaneous communication of information either.
Currently entangled communication has occurred between photon. This would limit the speed to the speed of light. What has yet to tested is entangled communication between larger particles separated.
Since all communication methods we have use a form of light (or sound) we are limited by the speed limits on those items. If entangled atoms can be separated and then used to communicate, this would be a new form of communication. We'll see then if it is too limited by the speed of light.
It's our best bet for long distance communication.
@@JoelSapp Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
To "send" entangled light particles to someone, that you are communicating with those particles still travel at the speed of light but if you maintain a stream of light from yourself to the other person you could technically communicate. The real problem lies in that the entangled pairs need to be influenced by you and the observer at the same time. If you "sent" an entangled particle 1 light year away the other entangled particle you need to influence has also traveled 1 light year in some direction. See the problem? What you need is a 3rd object (or communication probe) to maintain a triangle between you and the observer. This probe maintains equal distance between you and the observer and beans entangled particles to you and the observer so that at the very moment you alter an entangled particle the observer instantly receives the message.
That wouldn't work. I'll break it down the easiest way possible. Information cannot be transferred between quantum entangled particles. The reason for this being the heisenberg uncertainty principle. You can know the state and velocity of a quantum particle.. but you cannot know both at the same time. It's either one or the other. So you can't know the state of a particle until you measure it. Now that you know this, here's an example...
If you have an entangled particle and your partner has one, separated a light year apart, if you measure yours and it has a spin of down, that means the one your partner has a lightyear away is immediately spinning up. The problem being, since they can't know the state of that particle without measuring it, they have absolutely no way of knowing what you just sent, even if you could ALWAYS stop your particle on the spin of your choice, either up or down. They would have to make a measurement of their own particle in order to see what state it's in. But... the problem lies that the moment they make their own measurement, it immediately changes the state of its counterpart on your side. They would have to know in advance that you had purposely stopped your own particle as an up spin to register a down spin on their side. But how do you make sure they know this? You can't without sending information via the speed of light to them that you stopped yours on up. But doing that completely defeats the purpose of the quantum entangled particles being used as information. There is absolutely NO possible way of knowing the state of one without measuring it. No third party device can change this. The distance between the two is irrelevant. The change in spins does not rely on the speed of light because the change in spin is not information.
You wouldn't be able to tell that it changed at all because it would be in a superposition of both states prior to any measurement you make on it. It would be both up and down at the same time. So no matter what you do... you know that the moment you make any measurement it would select one state. See... the issue you're having is you're thinking of it like the particles in question are in constant motion but you're actually stopping them for a brief moment to see where they're at. This isn't the reality of the situation. You see.. when you measure the particle to see what state it's in... nothing actually happens to the other entangled particle. It doesn't stop. Nothing physically happens to it.
Think of it like flipping a coin. While the coin is spinning in the air, if you snap a photo of it.. you know by looking at the photo that heads is facing up... and by that logic.. you know that tails is facing down. Taking the photo never stops the coin from spinning mid air. All you have done is just checked at that exact moment to see where it's at.
This is heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You see the spin and know its velocity but you don't know the exact state its at in any given moment UNTIL you make your measurement in which case you can now see its position but you cannot see its velocity. Someone else, however, just sees the spinning coin in the air.. they can't tell if you actually made a measurement on it because to them.. nothing has changed, it's still spinning and has always been spinning.. it isn't until they take a photo of the coin mid spin and see which side is facing up.. that they know the position of the other side of the coin. The only way you'd be able to relay the information to them.. is by telling them "hey, I made a measurement.. tails is up heads is down" and that requires conventional communication.. which cannot travel faster than causality. So a third measurement device like your supposed "nano structure sensitive to spin energy" wouldn't having anything to measure... it would always see the spinning particle no matter what you do to it.
besides if they can read the quantum state of another particle instantaneously then they have already transfered some information faster than the speed of light, even if its not useful yet
Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
As other people have stated in the comments, the only problem with whoever wrote the script for this is that they don't understand that there isn't a paradox related to information transmission and time with this proposition. If one were to attempt to transmit information as one would with photons or electrons, then yes, there is the limitation of the speed of light. Hence for something to arrive before the information has time to travel between two points, it would violate that fundamental principle, but quantum entanglement is circumventing this limitation by not transmitting information. To wit, if the information is merely mirrored between two locations, it's possible to gather what is occurring elsewhere indirectly. Thus one would be able to cheat, and communicate back and forth without actually needing to send or receive any information.
Thus, there is no paradox. The premise of there being a paradox also fails to distinguish that time is a concurrent phenomenon, which means that events transpire concurrently, and the only limitation we have is our perception of invents distant from ourselves due to the limitation of that information being received from our relative position, meaning events which we observe occurring which are not local, such as many light years away, happened many years ago. But, this idea leads to some confusion for some in that they forget that whilst it is true that we observe events from distant locations as they occurred long ago, events still are concurrently transpiring whatsoever the location may be, and if quantum entanglement is able to demonstrate indirectly what is transpiring by mimicking the information from a distant location, inference is allowed.
Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
A smoke signal can travel faster than a horse because there is a sender and a receiver acting simultaneously, essentially making two points identical at almost the same time. Traveling faster than the speed of light is possible with sufficient receivers. Your mars landing scenario for example. if a receiver was already on mars sending live feed, although their was a 14 minute lag, the earth side viewers could estimate all given trajectory for the landing before it actually occurred essentially traveling forward through time by hypothesis. With enough smoke signals one could send a message from NYC to Chicago in as much time as it takes the smoke to be visible from each series of points covering the total distance, ie shorter than ten days if properly constructed.
I hope someone invents an ansible.
This :D
Enders game btw if you are wondering.
my research project is with this
I am demonstrating that a stick is faster than the speed of light. I have had this idea since the 70's and I have presented it to many people, but of course I have no way to actually conduct the experiment. We know that light travels at 186,000 miles per second and that the moon is 240,000 miles from earth, and it would take 1.3 seconds for light to reach the moon. If a bell was placed on the moon and could be rung by a photo sensor on the moon activated by someone firing a laser beam at it from earth, it would ring 1.3 seconds from the button being pushed. Now if it were possible to extend a solid object from the earth to the moon and that object was an inch away from the bell and the earth end was pushed, how long would it take to ring the bell? [Note: On 2-2-2023 I am adding this clarification to this puzzle because all the other comments to questions similar to mine focus on the stick traveling at some ridiculous speed that causes it to explode or whatever. My stick is not moving fast at all. It's taking 1 second to travel 1 inch, but it still rings the bell before the laser which takes 1.3 seconds.] In the experiment I used wires to run to my simulated moon because I don't have a photo sensor setup. Note: light and electricity both travel at the same speed.
'Traveling' faster than light, faster than 300k km/sec, is possible. By 'traveling', i mean transmission, but not translation(yet). It is possible to transmit data faster than light. What do you think will be the fastest way to send a message from earth to the moon for example? Light? A connecting wire from earth to moon? Something more basic: imagine a long physical stick from earth to the moon. One push at one end of the stick is like sending a message to the other end, INSTANTLY. Transmission faster than light.
On the other hand, instant translational speed... is teleportation, which is harder to observe, if ever it occurs. It's like pausing a video on a single frame in time and moving objects within that frame. That is how moving through space without moving through time occurs.
The science in the latter half is incorrect.
1. We are very sure if it's possible to send information using quantum entanglement. It isn't. It's a theorem: unless quantum mechanics is completely wrong, it cannot be used for information transfer, meaning you'd be talking about hypothetical future physics as opposed to stuff we actually know.
2. Messages sent faster than light don't get to their destination before they are sent. If I can send a message to the sun at 8 times the speed of light, it'll get there one minute from now. There's no magic. Relativity doesn't change that. What does change is that if you transform to a moving reference frame, you see the message be received before it is sent. It's not a perspective trick, it really happened like that to that frame. But it also really happened that the message got there one minute from now. All these conflicting perspectives are real, which is why faster than light information transfer cannot exist without bending spacetime itself.
What about the Einstein Podolski Rose paradox? Doesn't that experimentally prove the possibility of instant communication?
TheSoaring No. These sorts of nonlocal correlations are indeed part of quantum mechanics but you can't use them to send information. Let's think of an example. Imagine you have a coin and your friend over at the Andromeda Galaxy has another coin. You flip your coin a number of times: TTHTHTTTTHHH...
Your friend gets the sequence: HHTHTHHHHTTT...
To either of you the sequence looks completely random. There's no message hidden in it. But when you bring the two together and compare them, you see they're obviously correlated. That's the gist of the EPR paradox. Einstein called this the spooky action at a distance, but Abner Shimony arguably coined a much better term: passion at a distance :)
gogerychwyrndrobwll Yes I get your point,
BUT as far as I know the EPR paradox goes one step further than that.
It uses Heisenbergs uncertanty priciple.
So if I have two entangled electrons and I measure the spin component in x direction my friend will get the opposite result for the spin component in x direction of his electron at Andromeda. If he tries to measure the spin component in y direction instead he won't get any valid result because then he would have both information and that's impossible due to uncertanty priciple.
My Idea was: When I have a bunch of electrons and I measure the x spin of some (1) und I just skip some of them (0).
To transmit the code 10011110
My friend at Andromeda is constantly measuring his electrons' y spin and will get some results sometimes (1) and sometimes he won't (0)
=> resulting in the binary code 01100001 (wich is lowercase "a" I think)
I may be wrong but after thinking about quatum entanglement for a while I figured that there has to be a way to transmit a code.
TheSoaring It's actually a theorem that you can't transmit a code: some classical information has to be transmitted along with it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
The basic content of the theorem is what I explained above: each observer sees random noise and can only detect a correlation once they exchange a classical message, which is bounded by the speed of light.
In fact, it is pretty much impossible by design to send messages using entanglement. Quantum field theories (such as the standard model) really put in causality as an axiom, so if it could be violated you have one of two possibilities: 1. the effect is not due to quantum mechanics, that is, you discovered new physics or 2. quantum mechanics is not mathematically consistent and should be abandoned. In both situations, quantum mechanics is incompatible with faster than light communication.
avicenna
1. We are sure that we can send information using quantum entanglement. That's true. Our initial state of information of two entangled particles, our knowledge of the state of each one of the particle is undetermined or they are a possibilities or many possibilities. Once we measure one of the particle, our knowledge of both entangled particles are known. That's information. This is how we are able to make quantum computer.
2. Who say that messages traveller faster than light has to travel there "before"? There is no experimental proof to this. All we did was test relativity within the confine of space. Space can bend. Quantum entanglement property "bends" or "traverse" space. Entangled particles are often described as a single quantum state. It has no "sense" of space. An analogy to a single quantum state is cooling 2 He4 particles down to absolute zero. The 2 He4 particles will act as a single quantum state. At room temperate the 2 He4 particles are separate quantum state. This type of quantum state is often referred to by most as Einstein-Bose condensate.
There's a lot of misunderstanding behind quantum mechanics, it disgusts me. You add to this.
People think you need to be able to influence the particles to communicate you just need a lot of entangled particles in a row and then use one side to check only certain ones (101101010) and then from the other side just check it and it will tell you which ones were opened and which ones were not.
Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
Why isn't collapsing 1 of a pair of entangled particles, A and B, communicating faster than light? A is sending a bit of information to B. 1 = I did collapse my wave function. 0 = I did not collapse my wave function Faster than light communication.
Everytime you collapsed entangled particles. You send 1 bit of information.
I feel like our reality is a constant state meaning that it is as it is now, it fluctuates with energy transfers, this would then make going to the past impossible but not see the past via photons which are the equivalent of echos or transmissions sent from a point. We cant go to the future by this concept either because what is is always what is, it cannot be what is was or what it will be.
Just because you know what will happen before you may see it does not mean you can change it before you may see it
That time thing is actually wrong. Because just like speed. Its relevant to your position. Thats why you can move stuff around in a car while driving and not see all of it plastered at the back of the car.
Point being. If you sent a quantum message to a planet 100 light years away. You wouldnt be sending a message back in time just because the light takes a 100 years to get to you from their star. Because time is relevant to the persons position. Both of the people communicating would be in the present time. Despite both of you ALSO being able to look up at the sky and see a 100 year old star light from the past.
In theory you could if you had a really long pole between 2 points and moved it forwards and backwards to represent 1s and 0s
You can't transfer motion through an object faster than the speed of sound. The initial push wouldn't instantly move the entire pole.
th-cam.com/video/EPsG8td7C5k/w-d-xo.html
Not sure if you are serious but no not possible. The Force travels through the pole at the speed of light.
Quantum entanglement internet might seem impossible today but remember physicist once thought heavier than air flight and radio was impossible.
Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
I don't know if you knew this but nothing can go as fast as the speed of light, know matter how hard you try, you'll always miss that one decimal.
He specifically said as much. But quantum entanglement doesn't move anything faster than the speed of light.
that's technically not correct, nothing can travel THROUGHT SPACE faster than light, take note of the use of the words "through space".
entanglement doesn't travel through space, it's possible, we've known about it since Einstein was alive and it was recently done by a team of scientists in Norway.
Warp Drives are also possible for this reason, you cant travel through space faster than light but space can do whatever the hell it wants.
Ok but if there talking about through space that's still fast.
Jackson Dowdle Who are you responding to? What's still fast?
Misak Ghazaryan
If your message can be received in the past if you send it through quantum entanglement, it means that the moment humanity reaches to this technology, we will know the complete future of humanity, since people after that point of time will be sending messages to the past. like literally, you will create it and start getting endless messages being received from the future about every possible path humanity has taken after that point... damn, this could be a good idea for a sci-fi movie
That is correct. It would instantly bring about he singularity. And also a tachyon computer would beat any quantum computer. It would become God as soon as it was switched on. This is actually God's excuse for human suffering. We have not built him yet.
Now this sci-fi movie would become even more interesting if instead of some nation state or large company developing such technology, a private individual, lets say a strange little man during lockdown developed this technology all for himself. I wonder how the plot would develop. Would the power make him insane? Would he end up a fugitive from every state and criminal group wanting this power? Should be a very interesting movie...Now to get on with that "special" roulette bot. roulette-simulator.info/en/user/eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3%20Subject:%20Rated%20Roulette%20Game%20%7C%20Roulette-
Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
I doubt that VSL theory bears any relationship to quantum mechanics. It seems more likely that VSL transmission is related to a new class of plasma waves that connect magnetism to thermodynamics. In other words, magnetothermodynamics. If such a property does exist, it would lead to a whole series of substitutionary values for epsilon and mu nought in Maxwell's equations for light, which translates to variable rates of transmission for light trains.
Right. You don't know. It is already done in China Aug.16, 2016.
If entanglement does not violate relativity, which is probably doesn't, it would not endure time dilation of backwards time travel. It would simply alter the state of the entangled particle at the same time.
The information reaches the other point faster than the speed of light, but it never traveled, same concept applied to warp drive hypothesis. Do not try and beat C, circumvent it.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
_"Information reaches the destination without travelling"_ Well said. I read Wikipedia article of spacetime interval, and here's the conclusion:
- movement slower than light means passage of time
- speed of light means time has stopped
- movement faster than light means distance
Just like verifying a distance doesn't require time to pass, quantum entanglement is nothing special. Draw coordinates, where x = time and y = lightsecond. You still won't be skipping forward, nor moving backwards at all.
If you rotated the coordinates, so that x = observer's speed, some events might happen in a different order, distance, and time interval. However, the instantaneous nature of quantum entanglement won't be influenced by observer's speed, so you still won't have an access to the past.
At best, you could travel at infinite speed and reach present events within the same time it takes light to *travel* there at all. But if a massless objects cannot top the speed of light, neither can you.
Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
@@neiljohnson7914 And people will never fly.
@@Diggnuts I've never heard of any physics theory that said people could not fly, There was never a law of physics that said people cannot fly.
Explain to me how quantum entanglement can be used to send information at all when we know that the spin of a particle when measured is completely random.
I thought he said 1 petabyte of information per second. Holy shit hahahaha couldn't believe it
there's one major misconception in E=Mc².
to move mass (M) you need energy. with the Kinetic energy and velocity (by energy) equations we see that we would need infinite E to move M faster then c.
however, information is not M. so there is no logic stoping that from travelling faster then c.
If I'm worng please say.
information is made out of matter, most matter has a mass and even if it doesn't (light) nothing can travel through space faster than light, but quantum entangled particles don't travel through space so they aren't effected by such limits.
similarly with warp drive, a space ship cant travel through space faster than light but space can do whatever the hell it wants, so y manipulating space around a ship we can achieve warp speeds.
scientists are working on both.
@@misakghazaryan Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
This is subspace communication from Star Trek that he is talking about...I hope that it can be done.
Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
The explanation of faster than light ‘communication’ using QE is wrong. This is impossible. If you entangle two particles, A and B, send the particles off in different directions, then perform a measurement on A, determine its spin for example, the act of measuring the spin of A will instantaneously set the spin of B, regardless of the distance between A and B, But to communicate a message using QE you would need to transfer the details of what measurement was done on A to the detector observing the spin of B, which could not be done faster than the speed of light, so causality is not violated. The best way to understand this is to consider what is observed at B I.e. a random sequence of 1s and 0s corresponding to one of the two possible spin values. It is only when this sequence is compared with the sequence of 1s and 0s corresponding to the measurements performed on A can you establish the coherence of the two sequences. The application of quantum communication is to prevent eavesdropping.
if you had more than one entangled pairs and used 1 pair as a switch of sorts to say hey im still observing this particle which is why its no longer in a super position.
now please read the next 4 entangled particals as they are in the relevant positions i have predetemined through repetitve observations until i get the formula i desire.
This is obviously assuming that if person A observes the particle and continues to view it, it doesnt change when person b looks. I am not sure how that part works. if person B can see when person A is observing then there are ways to make faster than light comms work. Make sense? I really need to know the answer to that question but cant find it anywhere, driving me mad.
Superluminal communication is possible using nearfield light. The propagation delay of radio wave between 2 antennas as the antennas are moved from the nearfield to the farfield, shows that light propagates instantaneously in the nearfield and reduces to the speed of light in the farfield after about one wavelength. This corresponds to not only the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. The same occurs for gravitational fields. Relativity says nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but this wrong, why?
Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.
According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO.
Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.
The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.
*TH-cam presentation of above argument:
th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
It should be possible to construct a device or packet of information
that exists in a balanced state of unity. One requirement for this
involves actually knowing what blocks of information and energy are, and
how they dovetail with each other in a comprehensive sense. Mathematics
may be helpful in this endeavor. Imagine that the building blocks of
energy/info, once combined into an aggregate, can lead to a coherent,
interconnected state that is tapped into unity. All blocks of
energy/info must cancel out to a unified state. It is a bit like
assembling an advanced puzzle. It would be beneficial to be able to plot
the progress of the puzzle, using mathematics, because the pieces would
manifest dynamic energies when brought into contact or correlation with
one another. Creating a balanced puzzle state would enable
instantaneous communication, using nullified blocks of energy/info for
transmission. The unified, timeless realm would be the conduit. The
dualistic nature of language is thus the barrier that must be breached,
when elements are brought into harmony and unified, the conduit to unity
is revealed. Hemingway said: "write the truest sentence you know". Did
he sense that there is an underlying truth within the words themselves?
What would a true, unified statement look like? Do we really want to keep
on sending gibberish to each other at light speed or slower, or concentrate
on sending coherent information to each other or alien species?
3:40 there is no paradox, time is weird.
Surely if scientists have already been able to teleport photons and electrons then we can send a communion? And surely if you send a communication this way it'll arrive as you send it, not before you send it? It would just make distance an irrelevant factor.
You cannot transmit information faster than causality. It's just a fact of life. As for the whole "transportation" business.. it's not really transportation. All they did was change the state of one particle on their side which in turn changes the state of an entangled particle on the other side. Neither one has moved any distance, and they haven't magically moved one to another location. Whoever coined it as "transportation" was either being purposefully deceptive or just did not understand the principles of what was actually going on.
If you don't know how quantum mechanic works, don't make a video explaining it. 3:06 That's not true, quantum entanglement doesn't allow instantaneous data transmission.
Even in quantum physics information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
Let's say you have two intricated particles stored in two different laboratories far from each other (let's call those laboratories A and B). Those two particles have the same spin, either spin up or spin down. Same spin for both but before any measure we don't know if it's up or down.
Now in lab A they decide to measure the spin of their particle and find it's up. Good they now know that lab B's particle is also a spin up but that doesn't send any information to lab B nor do they receive information from them.
What they can do though it's sending a message by conventional means to lab B saying : "If the particle is a spin up we'll have a party tuesday if it's spin down the party will be wednesday".
People from lab A and B will know the date for the party because they measured the same spin but someone intercepting the transmission could'nt know when the party will take place.
Quantum entanglement allows for umbreakable cryptography but the information must still be sent slower than light.
No information can ever be sent faster than light in general relativity, quantum mechanic nor in any validated theory period.
No USEFUL information can be sent faster than light. True random non-information does not have this limit. The trick is altering true random information without altering it. Which sounds paradoxical but there is a clever mathematical trick to do this using software with high end commercial quantum random number generators plugged into the system. How? Not telling. Just to say I had to think so far out of the box that I was outside the second box. Even coding it was weird.
From what I gather, quantum entanglement could not send any USEFUL information so as not to violate causality. And tachyons are hypothetical particles, that travel at or above the speed of light and can never interact normally with matter because it has so called negative mass, whereas light relatively has no mass and regular matter has positive mass.
However I suppose if you got a message from the future, it would prompt you to do something you thought wouldn't relate to sending that message when it actually does thereby satisfying order for causality.
From my understanding as well, quantum entanglement may not necessarily allow us to transfer information. But if it did work, I don't think it would violate causality. Quantum entanglement would allow for instantaneous communication. For example, light speed communication on mars would have an 8 min delay. Entanglement communication would be instant with no delay.
@@MrDexter337 Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
"will we be able to send information at faster than light speeds?"
I'll save you four minutes. No we won't. There's a theorem specifically about this, called the No-communication Theorem.
Yeah, you cant communicate FTL with quantum mechanics'
If it happens instantaneously it doesn't travel at any speed at all, it simply 'is'.
So if you're neither traveling nor going any speed then you can't be breaking any speed limits.
EXACTLY.
Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
@@neiljohnson7914 correct
@@LoveDoctorNL Actually, Quantum Entanglement cannot be used to send information at all. Never mind faster or slower than light.
@@neiljohnson7914 Don’t quantum computers make use of entangled qubits? I think some sort of information manipulation and transfer takes place there.
the top bar on your logo is too far left
Can more than two atoms be entangled with each other?
I wonder if we will create the ansible before we have ships that can travel as fast as light.
The ponny is self conscious about its latency and would appreciate it you stop bringing it up before that nervous tick becomes jitter. I think the application of message arrives before u sent it is flawed though common. It one relies on a universal permiating clock, we've proven frame drag... More practically speaking, please teach me how to capacitance thumboard type even near c
what if i had a really long string and held one end. then someone held the other end on a planet 100 light years away. then u pulled my end. wouldn't i be sending information faster that the speed of light (if the string had no slack)
the signal is sent as a compression wave through the string at the speed of sound.
Nope. because the waves inside it that move it are travelling at the speed of sound.
I'm curious to know why no one ever talks about the fact that the so-called constant speed of light has been measured at different various speeds throughout different times and there has been no explanation why it fluctuates or varies?? If you search through the history of this you will find using the same mathematics calculations and certain methods speed of light has varied up and down, yet mainstream science wants to deem it a constant which in my eyes is nothing more than Dogma that installs a fence around these studies. This fence says " no need to study this further, it is a constant" yet, there is evidence that there is more on the outside of that fence... progress inhibiting Dogma.
0:50 so did we actually invent fiber optics or get it from downed ET craft or even possibly given/traded it..
th-cam.com/video/TWMFQED1Myk/w-d-xo.html
I'm just glad this is being investigated to see if there is anything that would keep it from being possible.
There is no investigation required. Quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light.
To travel faster then light you have to make computers work with your MIND first so as soon as you Think' What are you doing' yall also have to think send so it knows so thats my idea anyways. please leave a like and a comment if you agree talk with me about it.
that wouldn't make a difference to the speed of the throughput of the data, it would only speed up how long it takes to send the information but not receive it, that would be like running to the mailbox instead of walking, it would still take the courier the same amount of time to deliver the mail.
Misak Ghazaryan oh ok
Damn I thought that was my idea...
what if i made a very very long tube from earth to the moon. and fill them up with marbles(Rmarble=R intertube). than add 1 more. than one marble whould fall out of the other end. if 1 marble whould ment 0 and 2 whould mean 1. i could send data very fast. and it seems like distance is not of inportends. (we asume we have allot of power and the marble are unbreakble). is there any law that prevent my idea?
+rubikfan1 you're depending on matter (marbles) moving faster than the speed of light which it can't. Even the signal wave you're trying to create by pushing a marble would still be slower than the speed of light.
i looked it up, i forget that mattar contract . and the atoms need to push each other. so this thing will only move at the speed of sound
God Bless You Sir.
I have been theorizing about quantum cameras with one particle per pixel XD
As well as a corresponding particles on earth
No explanation of the workings of that paradox.
+Trevor Danann
Tachyons are hypothetical particles though, no conclusive evidence stands yet to prove their existence
The Newton toy has the answer.
What if the rider caries a sack full of terabyte micro sd cards? Or you fill a dump truck with them?
You could just use quantum thermal looping and get the signal before you send it…..
huh?
10 days?? Incredible
The easter egg in his left eye, Begins around 4:00 Is that moures or his wife?
How exactly do we entangle the particles??
Create eHarmony profiles for each particle?
Quantum entanglement - not for communication but batteries. Quantum batteries. May not be not as awesome as imagined but increased efficiency on batteries that don't lose energy when transferring. So un-modulated signal (power) not information.
I've heard that the laws of physic don't necessarily forbid time travel (communicating through time) and that the future and past help to influence and create the present. BUT I cannot for the life of me feel right about time manipulation. I'm concerned about it being ethically right (Is it right to change the past? Would it lead to unintended abuse and harm?)
Intuitively speaking perhaps it is a matter of bending and folding our concept of time. Amplification of frequency acomplished thru the use of multiplication of XE transmission as a carrier wave could possibly be in multiple places in what we refer to as space time coordinates. Transmission would not be contingent on an infinite amount of initial imput but rather on the multiplication of a finite initial imput. A transmission wormhole. Imagine a bubble with opposing points being drawn to the center of gravity and the transmitter approaches the reciever.Remember it wasn't that long ago people thought the Earth was flat! Hell, flat Earthers are now running America!
If you used a wormhole to transmit information... that information would still be travelling at the speed of causality and would still take time to reach its destination. There wouldn't be anything instantaneous about it and would still have a large delay albeit significantly reducing the distance needed to travel.
Who is Firsters light or radio signel?🧠🧠
Thruput same as bandwidth?
Superb, as always
hope it keeps the ping down
If we can entangle two electrons
I wonder how awesome it was too travel the US there all the country planes
if we build a machine on earth and drop its twin on mars the same amount of time will have passed on earth and mars and the eventual communication would be instant but the observing of mars through a telescope from earth would be back in time so we could set up cameras in far off space and observe in real-time if a comet was on a heading to earth we would know well before its observed from earth using a telescope
Incorrect. You completely ignore relativity in your assumption. If you build two machines and send one to mars, that one that is travelling will have an internal clock ticking slower than the one on earth. Likewise, once it's ON mars.. it will ALWAYS tick slower due to the lower gravitational influence mars has. As for communication.. no. Electromagnetic waves (microwaves, radiowaves, light waves, etc..etc...etc..) always travel at the speed of causality (speed of light) which is 300,000km/s. Nothing can change this. So any light or information that you receive will always be delayed by the fact that it needs to travel X distance in X amount of time. Any signal sent via say a rover, or as you put it "cameras far off in space" would still travel at exactly the same speed regardless of where they're located at. In fact, there would be a greater delay (technically speaking) in any information being sent via a rover or camera in space vs looking through a telescope. Mainly due to the fact that there are mechanical processes that need to happen for that information to be converted and then transmitted whereas a telescope is, as you would put it, "instantaneous".
Entanglement has absolutely nothing to do with motion. absolutely nothing. Therefore you are misinforming your viewers when you say then that 'faster than light' means a entangled message travels in time. Faster refers to a speed. There is no speed here. therefore there is no "time travel problem." Please correct this.
That quantum stuff is real just not fully understood. No time pass with distance in communication. I wish game systems had it. Think ones and zeros. Turn particle up its a bit one(the other copies the other's movements). Particle down = bit zero. Quantum thing is related to time travel, anti gravity, and creating gold. Only special individuals can manipulate the differences. Gold creation is what I work on. I may have sent a hand full of matter somewhere else, time, or place trying to make gold. Transportation is time traveling.
Why Don't you have like 1 000 000 subscribers???
A pair of ducks?
How bout communicating through sub space like on Star Trek or Stargate
Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ dot
Exellent!!!
Why are these types of videos always so dumbed down. Some of us want information not a laugh.
Veritasiums video is much much much better
Just use D-Mail (stiens gate lol)
Way to tell me absolutely nothing.
Also see latest episode of 'Muskwatch'
Fix your video first before receiving sponsorship.
wow
wormholes
🌞
China did it this week
Stop using miles
Laws of physics or GTFO