- #1
Jon_Trevathan
- 44
- 0
My speculation relates to “Superluminal Communication” in the context of a paper by Robert Desbrandes and Daniel Van Gent titled “Intercontinental quantum liaisons between entangled electrons in ion traps of thermoluminescent crystals” (see http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611109). In their paper, Desbrandes and Van Gent proffer the following conclusions:
“Entangled particles, such as electrons, can be “stored” in ion traps or impurities within thermoluminescent [dosimetry (TLD)]crystal lattices and remain isolated from environmental decoherence effects in the traps for considerable amounts of time. Electrons can be forced to leave these traps and then drop down to their respective ground state energies in the crystal lattice by thermal heating or by stimulated luminescence. An entangled electron dropping out of its ion trap will go through spin transitions which affect its entangled counterpart electron by reason of spin conservation laws such that it becomes favorable for the counterpart electron to exit its trap as a result, emitting some light while dropping to ground state, at whatever distances the traps are located from one another. Since traps can be entangled even though present in separate crystal lattices, such samples can be separated by a large distance and the entangled electrons still be connected until perturbed by thermal heating of the crystal lattice containing one of the trapped entangled electron pairs. It appears that the trapped entangled electrons escape only at discrete and unique temperature values, thus allowing the same glow curve response (although much less intense than the heated crystal) to be recorded for each non-heated thermoluminescent crystal when the temperature of the heated crystal lattice is increased and decreased.”
As you can see, the experiment translates a correlated quantum event into a correlated non-quantum observable. It is the emission of light by a specifically identifiable TLD crystal that, from the study’s experimental findings, appears to be correlated. Although Desbrandes and Van Gent do not mention Superluminal Communication in their paper, my question is “does this study suggested ways by which Superluminal Communication might be possible?
In consideration of this question, please visualize a large number of paired TLD crystals with the following characteristics: (i) Each TLD crystal pair is uniquely prepared relative to every other pair of TLD crystals such that when one crystal of a TLD crystal pair is heated, only its paired crystal will emit photons as described in the experiment. (ii) Each pair is uniquely identified or distinguished by any arbitrary means, to include numbering or sequential positioning. (iii) Retaining such identification or sequential positioning, the paired TLD crystals are separated into two ensembles. (iv) Each ensemble is then separated over some arbitrarily long distance.
In the context of each TLD crystal being arbitrarily associated with some pre-determined message and making the assumption that the experimental findings were such that a signal event might be consistently distinguished from noise, it appears possible for the associated message to be superluminally transmitted by heating the designated “transmitting” crystal and monitoring the “receiving” crystal for the distinctive pattern of photon emissions that Desbrandes and Van Gent described in their study.
Further, should the TLD crystals of each ensemble be sequentially designated with one ensemble being further designated the “transmitting” ensemble and the second ensemble being designated the “receiving” ensemble, it would also seen possible for simple binary messages to be superluminally transmitted through (i) the appropriate selection of crystals from the transmission ensemble and (ii) heating the selected crystals.
Although the foregoing examples seem to be obvious applications of the paper’s experimental findings, it seems equally obvious that these hypothetical extensions of the Desbrandes and Van Gent study violate special relativity.
There is another experiment by Daniel Van Gent (e.g. arXiv:nucl-ex/0411050) titled “Remote Stimulated Triggering of Quantum Entangled Nuclear Metastable States of 115m” that also appears to demonstrate superluminal communication. Van Gent’s description of the experimental design and results seem plausible, but the lack of confirming experiments for this and the experiment I reported above is troublesome.
I would value the comments of others before I give further consideration to the experiment or to my adiabatic speculations outlined below.
I know I should end my post here and await your comment on the Desbrandes and Van Gent paper. However, things could get even more interesting if the electrons trapped in a crystal might also be subject to adiabatic manipulation. The additional assumptions required for this thought experiment are: (i) It must be possible for trapped electrons to be stably maintained in a TLD crystal for an extended period of time. (ii) It must be possible for this stability to be extended for arbitrarily long periods of time when the TLD crystals are cryogenically maintained. (iii) The spin properties of entangled electrons within a crystal must be retained even when the crystal is placed in a cryogenic environment. (iv) It must be possible for such a cryogenically maintained crystal to be placed within a weak field for a sufficiently long period of time such that the spin of all or nearly all of the entangled electrons trapped within the transmission crystal to be adiabatically oriented in the same direction for any arbitrarily selected axis within the crystal without causing the electron to leave the trap. (v) The entangled electrons trapped within the receiving crystal must, notwithstanding a comparable cryogenic environment, assume the same spin orientation for the same selected axis, again without leaving the trap.
With these assumptions met, the spin orientation for the predetermined axis may be set for ensembles of transmission and receiving crystals prior to their spatial separation. Thereafter, the spin orientation of the entangled electrons within selected crystals would be adiabatically changed for the same axis. The last assumptions of this thought experiment are: (i) at such time as the spin orientation of the entangled electrons within a receiving crystal equals or exceeds some critical percentage of the total number of entangle electrons within the crystal, some non-quantum attribute of the entire crystal will be changed and (ii) this macro-attribute may be observed without impact on the spin orientation of the entangled electrons which, in the aggregate, have caused the observable.
Your critique of any aspect of this post would be valued.
Thank you,
Jon Trevathan
“Entangled particles, such as electrons, can be “stored” in ion traps or impurities within thermoluminescent [dosimetry (TLD)]crystal lattices and remain isolated from environmental decoherence effects in the traps for considerable amounts of time. Electrons can be forced to leave these traps and then drop down to their respective ground state energies in the crystal lattice by thermal heating or by stimulated luminescence. An entangled electron dropping out of its ion trap will go through spin transitions which affect its entangled counterpart electron by reason of spin conservation laws such that it becomes favorable for the counterpart electron to exit its trap as a result, emitting some light while dropping to ground state, at whatever distances the traps are located from one another. Since traps can be entangled even though present in separate crystal lattices, such samples can be separated by a large distance and the entangled electrons still be connected until perturbed by thermal heating of the crystal lattice containing one of the trapped entangled electron pairs. It appears that the trapped entangled electrons escape only at discrete and unique temperature values, thus allowing the same glow curve response (although much less intense than the heated crystal) to be recorded for each non-heated thermoluminescent crystal when the temperature of the heated crystal lattice is increased and decreased.”
As you can see, the experiment translates a correlated quantum event into a correlated non-quantum observable. It is the emission of light by a specifically identifiable TLD crystal that, from the study’s experimental findings, appears to be correlated. Although Desbrandes and Van Gent do not mention Superluminal Communication in their paper, my question is “does this study suggested ways by which Superluminal Communication might be possible?
In consideration of this question, please visualize a large number of paired TLD crystals with the following characteristics: (i) Each TLD crystal pair is uniquely prepared relative to every other pair of TLD crystals such that when one crystal of a TLD crystal pair is heated, only its paired crystal will emit photons as described in the experiment. (ii) Each pair is uniquely identified or distinguished by any arbitrary means, to include numbering or sequential positioning. (iii) Retaining such identification or sequential positioning, the paired TLD crystals are separated into two ensembles. (iv) Each ensemble is then separated over some arbitrarily long distance.
In the context of each TLD crystal being arbitrarily associated with some pre-determined message and making the assumption that the experimental findings were such that a signal event might be consistently distinguished from noise, it appears possible for the associated message to be superluminally transmitted by heating the designated “transmitting” crystal and monitoring the “receiving” crystal for the distinctive pattern of photon emissions that Desbrandes and Van Gent described in their study.
Further, should the TLD crystals of each ensemble be sequentially designated with one ensemble being further designated the “transmitting” ensemble and the second ensemble being designated the “receiving” ensemble, it would also seen possible for simple binary messages to be superluminally transmitted through (i) the appropriate selection of crystals from the transmission ensemble and (ii) heating the selected crystals.
Although the foregoing examples seem to be obvious applications of the paper’s experimental findings, it seems equally obvious that these hypothetical extensions of the Desbrandes and Van Gent study violate special relativity.
There is another experiment by Daniel Van Gent (e.g. arXiv:nucl-ex/0411050) titled “Remote Stimulated Triggering of Quantum Entangled Nuclear Metastable States of 115m” that also appears to demonstrate superluminal communication. Van Gent’s description of the experimental design and results seem plausible, but the lack of confirming experiments for this and the experiment I reported above is troublesome.
I would value the comments of others before I give further consideration to the experiment or to my adiabatic speculations outlined below.
I know I should end my post here and await your comment on the Desbrandes and Van Gent paper. However, things could get even more interesting if the electrons trapped in a crystal might also be subject to adiabatic manipulation. The additional assumptions required for this thought experiment are: (i) It must be possible for trapped electrons to be stably maintained in a TLD crystal for an extended period of time. (ii) It must be possible for this stability to be extended for arbitrarily long periods of time when the TLD crystals are cryogenically maintained. (iii) The spin properties of entangled electrons within a crystal must be retained even when the crystal is placed in a cryogenic environment. (iv) It must be possible for such a cryogenically maintained crystal to be placed within a weak field for a sufficiently long period of time such that the spin of all or nearly all of the entangled electrons trapped within the transmission crystal to be adiabatically oriented in the same direction for any arbitrarily selected axis within the crystal without causing the electron to leave the trap. (v) The entangled electrons trapped within the receiving crystal must, notwithstanding a comparable cryogenic environment, assume the same spin orientation for the same selected axis, again without leaving the trap.
With these assumptions met, the spin orientation for the predetermined axis may be set for ensembles of transmission and receiving crystals prior to their spatial separation. Thereafter, the spin orientation of the entangled electrons within selected crystals would be adiabatically changed for the same axis. The last assumptions of this thought experiment are: (i) at such time as the spin orientation of the entangled electrons within a receiving crystal equals or exceeds some critical percentage of the total number of entangle electrons within the crystal, some non-quantum attribute of the entire crystal will be changed and (ii) this macro-attribute may be observed without impact on the spin orientation of the entangled electrons which, in the aggregate, have caused the observable.
Your critique of any aspect of this post would be valued.
Thank you,
Jon Trevathan