Even more, lets say in the tick Alice gets a 0. She needs to measure again, another entangled particle (the original one is now useless because its wave function has been collapsed, so they are not entangled anymore). So, Alice uses another particle, and gets a 1 this time. and that's the end of Alice's tick. So Bob, has a bunch of particles on his side. He doesn't even know how many particles Alice measured. Also remember that whenever he measures something, he gets a random value. So, on Bob's side he sees a 0. Was this the value Alice wanted or not? there is no way for him to tell, so he measures the next value, a 1. Was this the real information? Or was this a random value? Bob never knows!
Let's say Alice want's to transmit a 1. Alice reads the quantum entangled particle, and gets a 0. Bob measures it, and gets 0. There is no way for Alice to tell Bob that that value is wrong (if there was, they could just use that as the information channel instead).
Alice measures again, to see if she gets the 1 she is looking for, and get's another 0. Bob notes in his side another 0. Finally, Alice gets a 1, Bob on his side by now has 001, and has No idea about which bit is te correct one. Was Alice trying to send a 0? a 1? Bob never knows.
So, no matter what, information can not violate the causality principle implied by relativity.
1. Make Organic (Inorganic?? its not clear) Display
2. Sell it
3. Make money
4. Say that it is bad for the enviroment because of the Cadmium
5. Come up with one without Cadmium
6. Sell it
7. Make MORE money
The tricky part is that any measurement is destructive. And the only way to 'see' anything is measuring. So, when Bob tries to know if Alice performed or not a measurement, he performs one himself, collapsing the wave function. After he does that, there is no way for him to tell if that value was collapsed by him or Alice, therefore, no information is transmited faster than light.
This is known as the EPR Paradox, Eistein thought of this as an experiment to 'disproof' quantum mechanics, but it was learned that no information was transfered after all, so the c limit is still true.
Everyone knows that to make something sound cool you just put an X somewhere
-X-Box
-Xtreme Games
-XXX (the action movie, not the rating, triple x triple the fun!)
-XXX (the rating)
-Windows XP
-Ximian
In the EPR experiment both one particle knows that its twin was measured instantly and changes accordingly. An instant is faster than light:-)
The only catch is that no information can be transmited this way, so the c limit is still valid.
"So Snake, I'm going to activate your nanomachines in your blood to give you massage in your arm after that torture."
Wasn't that one of the most weird moments in videogame history?
The problem with that is that the only way for Bob to tell if Alice performed or not a measurement is if Bob performs one himself. Bob would never know if the value he has is due to Alice's or his measurement.
what the uncertainty principle says is that there is a limit of how much information in position and time you have. so, you can be very precise in one, but that increases the error in the other one.
There is a lot of confusion with this. When the particles are, as you called, 'a quantum pair' and Alice measures one of them, the other one assumes the same measured value, so Bob also sees the same value. There is no way to transmit information that way, since Alice doesn't know or controls what value her measurement will turn out to be. But, as soon as she measures, both Alice and Bob has the same, totally useless, random piece of information.
Well, not useless, you can use this as an encryption key, but that's another story...
To tell the truth, I'm a former computer engineer that quit a good software job to do get a PhD in Physics research on the quantum information field.
My point is that you shouldn't ignore the problem. It is important not to forget the big picture. Remember, in your and my professional lifetime we will see the fall of Moore's Law. And you will care about that then. Maybe too late.
I have seen many posts here that disregard the serious technical limitation imposed by classical computing by just saying 'Engineers will solve it, they always do'. That is like saying that faster than light travel is only an engineering problem. New computing paradigms are
needed. Most predictions says that most of us will witness Moore's Law fail due to quantum mechanical and thermodynamical reasons. Instead of blindly pretending that the engineers will magically solve the problem it would be more
proactive to start learning more about the prospects the next generation of technologies.
We need to think, not to hope for something magical to happen.
"Kazaa's new software allows people to rate files so that corrupt or false files will quickly collect ratings poor enough to warn people away from downloading them. "
I wonder how long till this system is also exploited to give poor ratings to the real files.
Maybe some other alternatives to self moderation can be used.
Slashdot Mirror
Even more, lets say in the tick Alice gets a 0. She needs to measure again, another entangled particle (the original one is now useless because its wave function has been collapsed, so they are not entangled anymore). So, Alice uses another particle, and gets a 1 this time. and that's the end of Alice's tick. So Bob, has a bunch of particles on his side. He doesn't even know how many particles Alice measured. Also remember that whenever he measures something, he gets a random value. So, on Bob's side he sees a 0. Was this the value Alice wanted or not? there is no way for him to tell, so he measures the next value, a 1. Was this the real information? Or was this a random value? Bob never knows!
Let's say Alice want's to transmit a 1. Alice reads the quantum entangled particle, and gets a 0. Bob measures it, and gets 0. There is no way for Alice to tell Bob that that value is wrong (if there was, they could just use that as the information channel instead). Alice measures again, to see if she gets the 1 she is looking for, and get's another 0. Bob notes in his side another 0. Finally, Alice gets a 1, Bob on his side by now has 001, and has No idea about which bit is te correct one. Was Alice trying to send a 0? a 1? Bob never knows. So, no matter what, information can not violate the causality principle implied by relativity.
1. Make Organic (Inorganic?? its not clear) Display 2. Sell it 3. Make money 4. Say that it is bad for the enviroment because of the Cadmium 5. Come up with one without Cadmium 6. Sell it 7. Make MORE money
The tricky part is that any measurement is destructive. And the only way to 'see' anything is measuring. So, when Bob tries to know if Alice performed or not a measurement, he performs one himself, collapsing the wave function. After he does that, there is no way for him to tell if that value was collapsed by him or Alice, therefore, no information is transmited faster than light. This is known as the EPR Paradox, Eistein thought of this as an experiment to 'disproof' quantum mechanics, but it was learned that no information was transfered after all, so the c limit is still true.
Everyone knows that to make something sound cool you just put an X somewhere -X-Box -Xtreme Games -XXX (the action movie, not the rating, triple x triple the fun!) -XXX (the rating) -Windows XP -Ximian
In the EPR experiment both one particle knows that its twin was measured instantly and changes accordingly. An instant is faster than light :-)
The only catch is that no information can be transmited this way, so the c limit is still valid.
If I hate something more than a buzzword (remember Blast Processing and the Sega Genesis?), is an article that is just about a buzzword.
"So Snake, I'm going to activate your nanomachines in your blood to give you massage in your arm after that torture." Wasn't that one of the most weird moments in videogame history?
The problem with that is that the only way for Bob to tell if Alice performed or not a measurement is if Bob performs one himself. Bob would never know if the value he has is due to Alice's or his measurement.
what the uncertainty principle says is that there is a limit of how much information in position and time you have. so, you can be very precise in one, but that increases the error in the other one.
There is a lot of confusion with this. When the particles are, as you called, 'a quantum pair' and Alice measures one of them, the other one assumes the same measured value, so Bob also sees the same value. There is no way to transmit information that way, since Alice doesn't know or controls what value her measurement will turn out to be. But, as soon as she measures, both Alice and Bob has the same, totally useless, random piece of information. Well, not useless, you can use this as an encryption key, but that's another story...
"... so, those are the things you need to do to start it on. If you have more questions from now on, please, do not raise your hand."
"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" -Darth Vader
"Now i can check my email, IM my friends, surf the internet, all that in the AOL computer. It is so simple!"
To tell the truth, I'm a former computer engineer that quit a good software job to do get a PhD in Physics research on the quantum information field. My point is that you shouldn't ignore the problem. It is important not to forget the big picture. Remember, in your and my professional lifetime we will see the fall of Moore's Law. And you will care about that then. Maybe too late.
Maybe if we were using that power to analize Pi in base 11 we would find the hidden message before the end of the world.
I have seen many posts here that disregard the serious technical limitation imposed by classical computing by just saying 'Engineers will solve it, they always do'. That is like saying that faster than light travel is only an engineering problem. New computing paradigms are needed. Most predictions says that most of us will witness Moore's Law fail due to quantum mechanical and thermodynamical reasons. Instead of blindly pretending that the engineers will magically solve the problem it would be more proactive to start learning more about the prospects the next generation of technologies. We need to think, not to hope for something magical to happen.
did you know that if you rotate 50937 it says legos?
I wonder how long till this system is also exploited to give poor ratings to the real files. Maybe some other alternatives to self moderation can be used.
I would like to see more initiaves in self-moderation in the internet. Any suggestions? I rather hear /.ers instead of the courts on this.
And it is not off-topic.
In Seven the detective says that the FBI monitors some books in public libraries.
just like in the movie Seven
"There is no teacher but the enemy." -Mazer Rackham
Just imagine: sp1derman sp1d3rman SpydrMn and all the other variations... jeez.