roywiggins 12 hours ago

Entanglement isn't particularly useful for communication, you can't send bits without sending photons (or similar) physically. Quantum mechanics doesn't permit ansibles as far as anyone knows.

  • eigenket 11 hours ago

    While the second and third parts if your comment are complete true, the first part

    > Entanglement isn't particularly useful for communication

    I would say is false. Entanglement lets you do some fun and theoretically useful stuff for communication tasks. At the most basic level sharing entanglement lets you upgrade a classical communication channels you have into a quantum one (sending 2 bits and burning an entangled pair lets you send a qubit). You can do increasing fancy stuff if you so wish, if you are sufficiently paranoid you might be interested in device independent cryptography, which is only possible because of entanglement.

    • roywiggins 7 hours ago

      Yes, they are fun, but not notably useful, at least not yet. And only useful for pretty specialized tasks like key exchange.

      • quantadev 6 hours ago

        Isn't it true that in key exchange entanglement isn't used in any way shape or form for sending data, but only in making a determination that there was no eavesdropping on the transmission, because any eavesdropper would collapse the wave function.

        So like you said, entanglement can't be used to send information, but it can be used to detect if the transmission was secure (I think)

  • aatd86 11 hours ago

    Is it the issue or is it rather than any measurement of entangled quantum state change is modifying the measurement to the extent that there is a chicken and egg problem?

    Basically reading quantum data is also a write operation?

    • eigenket 11 hours ago

      The issue the person above is alluding to is known as the no communication theorem.

      It has a wiki page

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

      But the upshot is basically that entanglement doesn't let you do anything unless you send some classical data as well.

      • aatd86 11 hours ago

        Thanks. The reason still seem to be related to the uncertainty principle although I am not sure.

        The same way they explain no-cloning but it seems to be analogous to identity within a system with interaction from neighboring data. Ultimately there is no pure independent state. Data always exists within context. Hence causality and spatial preservation (no instant physical teleportation as far as is currently understood). (in very layman's terms)

  • bloopernova 10 hours ago

    I am unable to grasp why FTL communication would break causality, it's like my brain just refuses to accept it. Seriously, I've had it explained several times over the years.

    • eigenket 10 hours ago

      Its probably mostly because you have an intuitive idea that there is some concept of "now" which is independent of the observer.

      In special relativity this global "now" isn't a thing. It doesn't exist. There is no global now. Different observers who are in different places and/or moving at different speeds will describe different events as simultaneous.

      In particular say we have an observer who sees an event A happening at time 0, and a second event (call it B) at time t and the distance between them is greater than c t. Then you can find observers who see A happening first, B happening first or the two happening at the same time. However all observers will agree that the distance between the events was greater than c times the time between them.

      This seems like it would cause problems with causality, but it doesn't because we need the distance to be greater than c times the time, which means no lightspeed signal could get from A to B. If you allow ftl communication then this "escape" doesn't work anymore, and causality can be explicitly broken.

    • shepardrtc 10 hours ago

      When you communicate, you're sending energy - whether it's sound waves or radio waves or whatever. Energy can't travel faster than c through spacetime. Now if you manipulate spacetime, such as a wormhole or whatever, then the end result can effectively appear as if it's FTL but its still going at c, its just traveling through less/compressed space.

    • quantadev 6 hours ago

      One intuitive explanation is that anything moving at the speed of light is experiencing no time at all (from the point of view of an observer) and if something is moving faster than light that means it's going backwards in time. (only massless virtual particles can)

      If a clock stops or runs backwards that totally messes up "causality" which is about events interacting relative to a time order, and so time must exist for causality to make sense.

    • Ono-Sendai 8 hours ago
      • roywiggins 7 hours ago

        If you did manage FTL communication, it seems like it might let you detect the notional absolute rest frame, so you'd be breaking special relativity anyway.

    • rogerclark 9 hours ago

      You can't grasp this because there is no FTL communication. Quantum entanglement does not enable FTL communication, and wormholes etc. are entirely theoretical.

      • roywiggins 7 hours ago

        It doesn't even enable STL communication, other than eg superdense coding and similar. But that's not what people mean when they think entanglement can be used for communication.

    • bitwize 6 hours ago

          There was a young lady named Bright,
          Whose speed was much faster than light.
          She went out one day
          In a relative way
          And returned on the previous night.
      
      Time flows differently depending on velocity with respect to your frame of reference. Two observers moving at different speeds with respect to each other see different time flows. At normal speeds this is negligible but at close to light speed... hoo boy. You get things like observers seeing events occur separately that occured simultaneously for their counterparts and so forth. So if you were able to send information faster than light somehow, you would be sending it from one frame of reference with one notion of time into another frame of reference with a different notion of time -- one which observes receipt of the message before it can observe the sender sending it!

      It's all a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.