The simple theorem that one can't communicate information based on partial state of a quantum-mechanical system: in this case, don't we have the entire state of the system, not a partial state? After the electrons are caused to be entangled (or not) by some action at a remote location (by entanglement swapping), the entire quantum mechanical state is now held locally in the two electrons. (Correct?). We can therefore measure it to obtain information, and the theorem doesn't apply or limit this.
It's not a problem that you sometimes succeed and sometimes fail to entangle the electrons. You just do it enough times that you can distinguish between "sometimes they become entangled" and "they never become entangled", and the ability to distinguish between these two allows you to communicate a bit.
This experiment apparently allows one to entangle electrons sitting in the same room based on actions in a far removed location. If you can do that, then you can choose to entangle them or not at the far removed location and test whether they're entangled or not locally, thus achieving FTL communication. Entanglement based on actions at a far removed location is the mechanism for FTL communication. It is apparently real. (?)
In a separate post I described a means by which this would give FTL communication. Sorry to ask you to go find it, but I'm curious what's wrong with it. I believe it gets around the traditional issue with detecting bits from one side of an entangled pair by putting both of the pair right next to each other, and detecting whether they're entangled or not to get a '1' or '0' communicated. It requires that you can entangle the pair (or not) at a third location, which apparently is done in this experiment.
If we modify this situation just slightly, it seems to give FTL communication. Here's how we modify it. Instead of electrons 1 and 2 being 1.3 kilometers apart, we put them in the same room, "room X". And we don't have just one electron, but instead very many. We put the "third location" very far away. Perhaps light-years away. At the third location, we decide whether we want to send a '1' or a '0'. If we decide to send a '1', we entangle many of the photons, which entangles the electrons in room X. If we decide to send a '0', we don't entangle anything. At room X many light-years away, we detect whether the electrons are entangled or not. This is detectable, correct? Doesn't this allow us to receive a '1' or a '0'? Don't we now have FTL communication? What am I missing?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, that explains it. Apparently entanglement isn't being swapped in "entanglement swapping". Instead, it just entangles more things together.
The simple theorem that one can't communicate information based on partial state of a quantum-mechanical system: in this case, don't we have the entire state of the system, not a partial state? After the electrons are caused to be entangled (or not) by some action at a remote location (by entanglement swapping), the entire quantum mechanical state is now held locally in the two electrons. (Correct?). We can therefore measure it to obtain information, and the theorem doesn't apply or limit this.
It's not a problem that you sometimes succeed and sometimes fail to entangle the electrons. You just do it enough times that you can distinguish between "sometimes they become entangled" and "they never become entangled", and the ability to distinguish between these two allows you to communicate a bit.
This experiment apparently allows one to entangle electrons sitting in the same room based on actions in a far removed location. If you can do that, then you can choose to entangle them or not at the far removed location and test whether they're entangled or not locally, thus achieving FTL communication. Entanglement based on actions at a far removed location is the mechanism for FTL communication. It is apparently real. (?)
You didn't read what I wrote. In this setup, both halves of the entangled pair are in the same room. So the problem you mention doesn't exist.
In a separate post I described a means by which this would give FTL communication. Sorry to ask you to go find it, but I'm curious what's wrong with it. I believe it gets around the traditional issue with detecting bits from one side of an entangled pair by putting both of the pair right next to each other, and detecting whether they're entangled or not to get a '1' or '0' communicated. It requires that you can entangle the pair (or not) at a third location, which apparently is done in this experiment.
If we modify this situation just slightly, it seems to give FTL communication. Here's how we modify it. Instead of electrons 1 and 2 being 1.3 kilometers apart, we put them in the same room, "room X". And we don't have just one electron, but instead very many. We put the "third location" very far away. Perhaps light-years away. At the third location, we decide whether we want to send a '1' or a '0'. If we decide to send a '1', we entangle many of the photons, which entangles the electrons in room X. If we decide to send a '0', we don't entangle anything. At room X many light-years away, we detect whether the electrons are entangled or not. This is detectable, correct? Doesn't this allow us to receive a '1' or a '0'? Don't we now have FTL communication? What am I missing?