Entanglement, ftl communication and destruction of the entangled state

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the no-communication theorem in quantum mechanics, specifically regarding entangled photons and the potential for faster-than-light (FTL) communication. Participants explore the implications of controlling the polarization of entangled photons and the limitations imposed by the destruction of the entangled state upon measurement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether controlling the polarization of entangled photons could allow for FTL communication, suggesting that future advancements in quantum mechanics might make this possible.
  • Another participant argues that if such control were possible, it would violate fundamental principles of physics, such as the cluster decomposition property, and would challenge causality.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of entanglement, with participants noting that measurement destroys the entangled state, thus limiting communication to a single bit per photon pair.
  • Participants discuss the analogy of a self-destructing cell phone to illustrate the limitations of using entangled photon pairs for communication, emphasizing that multiple pairs would be needed for longer messages, but each would be exhausted after one use.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that measurement destroys the entangled state, limiting the ability to reuse photon pairs for communication. However, there is disagreement on the feasibility of controlling polarization to enable FTL communication, with some expressing skepticism about the possibility of overcoming the randomness barrier.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about future advancements in quantum mechanics and the implications of such advancements on established principles. There are unresolved questions regarding the potential for FTL communication and the practical limitations of using entangled states.

mix609
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
my question is about the no-communication theorem in quantum mechanics:
Assume that i have a pair of entangled photons which are entangled on their polarization. also assume that i send one to alice and another to bob. and alice wants to send a message to bob. no communication theorem states that communication is not possible because the polarization when measured by the sender(alice) will be random and while alice can know what result bob will get if he measures the polarization of his photon, it does not imply communication because alice would have to use a classical channel to communicate what result she got upon measurement, to bob. that defeats the very purpose of the experiment

my question is, what if its possible to control the polarization on alice's side by some means(assuming physicists find out some new novel way to do this 5 or 10 years from now. i know this is a very BIG assumption but perhaps possible after a decade more of QM research). can the no communication theorem be said to be violated now? my other question is: even if it were possible to control the polarization, would it be possible to reuse the photon pairs for communicating more than once?(cause any attempt to measure the entanglement will also destroy it. hence only 1 bit of data can be sent and the entanglement is subsequently and immediately destroyed). so can it be said that: not only is the randomness a problem, the other problem is that the entanglement can be used only once per photon pair and in order to communicate 1 byte(1 byte=8 bits) of data, one would require 8 entangled photon pairs?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mix609 said:
my question is, what if its possible to control the polarization on alice's side by some means(assuming physicists find out some new novel way to do this 5 or 10 years from now. i know this is a very BIG assumption but perhaps possible after a decade more of QM research).

So your question is why isn't it possible to send information FTL if some way was discovered on how to do it?

That's tautological and as such not really saying anything.

If such was possible it would violate a very basic principle of physics called the cluster decomposition property and would be a revolution in physics earning its discoverer an instant Nobel prize. You can't predict the future, but such seems highly unlikely because it would mean violating causality which in effect is predicting the future.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PaulK2 and mix609
bhobba said:
So your question is why isn't it possible to send information FTL if some way was discovered on how to do it?


and my other question was: can an entangled photon pair be reused to send information or is it possible not more than once coz when alice measures, the entangled state is destroyed due to the act of measuring?
 
mix609 said:
and my other question was: can an entangled photon pair be reused to send information or is it possible not more than once coz when alice measures, the entangled state is destroyed due to the act of measuring?

The measurement ends the entanglement.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Nugatory said:
The measurement ends the entanglement.

which suggests that its pretty useless even if it were possible to communicate ftl coz its like having a cell phone which let's u say "hello" and then self destructs itself and now a brand new phone has to be purchased to say the next word after which it again self destructs and so on...

So if one day if its somehow possible to overcome the randomness barrier, an entangled photon pair can still be used to send only 1 bit and then it expires. yeah, one cud use several such pairs to send longer messages but all of them would be "exhausted" rapidly
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
775
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K