Quantum entanglement comunication

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of quantum entanglement and its implications for communication, particularly whether it is possible to transmit information faster than light using entangled particles. Participants explore the nature of measurements, the necessity of shared information between entangled parties, and the effects of measurement on entanglement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that while entanglement does not allow for faster-than-light communication, it might be possible to interpret measurement results in a way that conveys information.
  • Others argue that Bob cannot determine if Alice has measured her particle without prior communication, as the results appear random without shared information.
  • A participant questions the necessity of knowing Alice's results if they already have a protocol in place, suggesting a misunderstanding of the role of shared information in entanglement.
  • Some participants discuss the idea of forcing a particle to be measured in a specific state, but others clarify that any measurement breaks the entanglement and thus cannot be used to communicate information.
  • There is mention of wave collapse as part of one interpretation of quantum mechanics, with a participant noting that this collapse does not provide observable evidence of measurement.
  • Participants acknowledge that entanglement means the state of each particle cannot be expressed independently, and any measurement will render the particles independent of each other.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the possibility of using entanglement for communication, with multiple competing views on the implications of measurement and the nature of entanglement itself. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the potential for information transfer through entangled particles.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the concept of wave collapse, and the unresolved nature of how measurements affect entangled states. The discussion also highlights the need for shared information to understand the outcomes of measurements.

Paulo Jardim
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I have a question about quantum entanglement, I see saying that it would not be possible to communicate faster than light using this technique, but for example, and I understand that it is not the information that travels, however if for example we use the interval of the measurement and read as binary, that is to say the if it was measured so result = 1 if not so = 0, or as Morse code, in short, it would not be possible to read in if it was measured or not and the result translate for information?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is impossible for Bob, working alone in his lab, to know whether Alice has done anything with her particle.

Entanglement only reveals itself when Alice and Bob share information about what they did with their particles and what the results were.
 
DrClaude said:
It is impossible for Bob, working alone in his lab, to know whether Alice has done anything with her particle.

Entanglement only reveals itself when Alice and Bob share information about what they did with their particles and what the results were.

Yes, if they create protocol, like internet only works because they have a protocol!

But why I need the Alice result if I know what was?
 
Paulo Jardim said:
Yes, if they create protocol, like internet only works because they have a protocol!
This has no relation to what we are talking about.

Paulo Jardim said:
But why I need the Alice result if I know what was?
If you have no information from Alice, your ensemble of particles will look random. You have to compare the Alice's result to even determine that the particles were entangled in pairs to begin with.

Coming back to the OP:
Paulo Jardim said:
it would not be possible to read in if it was measured or not and the result translate for information?
By looking only at his particle, Bob has no way of knowing whether Alice has measured her particle or not.
 
DrClaude said:
By looking only at his particle, Bob has no way of knowing whether Alice has measured her particle or not.

I thought that once the measurement was made by Bob, then the particle could be read, but that is not the case, so I understand there is no way of detecting that there was a measurement.

Thanks Dr.Claude
 
would it not be possible to force the particle to be measured in a specific state and thus apply in identical intervals between the two sides and compare the results?

sorry for the stupid questions*
 
Paulo Jardim said:
would it not be possible to force the particle to be measured in a specific state and thus apply in identical intervals between the two sides and compare the results?

sorry for the stupid questions*

That's exactly what is not possible. The initial measurement of each particle is correlated. But, anything you do to the particle after that is not reflected in the other particle. The first measurement breaks the entanglement.
 
PeroK said:
That's exactly what is not possible. The initial measurement of each particle is correlated. But, anything you do to the particle after that is not reflected in the other particle. The first measurement breaks the entanglement.

This I understood, my experiment was to take several entanglement waves, organize them to identify them, I imagined that when (Bob) did the reading here would be possible (Alice) knew that it was made, since there would be a wave collapse and in this way you could know that there was a measurement.

PS.

Well, thinking about it would only work if we could do the measurements without changing the properties of the particle, which if I'm not mistaken is improbable.
 
Last edited:
Paulo Jardim said:
since there would be a wave collapse and in this way you could know that there was a measurement.
Collapse is only part of one interpretation of the theory. It is not something physical, so there is nothing the observe.

Paulo Jardim said:
Well, thinking about it would only work if we could do the measurements without changing the properties of the particle, which if I'm not mistaken is improbable.
Entanglement means that the state of each particle can't be expressed independently of the state of the other. A measurement will necessarily break the entanglement, since the state of each particle is then independent of the other.
 
  • #10
DrClaude said:
Collapse is only part of one interpretation of the theory. It is not something physical, so there is nothing the observe. Entanglement means that the state of each particle can't be expressed independently of the state of the other. A measurement will necessarily break the entanglement, since the state of each particle is then independent of the other.

It`s crystal now, thanks guys!

Regards,
Paulo Jardim
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K