You have a 'handshake' that each of you sends via your respective 'sending' particles.
Sending anything at all is the problem. You can't.
Measuring or modifying your particle breaks the entanglement with the other. You can't control what the other person will see, you can't tell if they've checked. How then do you send your handshake?
Both sides have a bag of say 10,000 serialized, entangled particles and the guy holding the bag in DC asks, "Have they launched anything yet?" "No."
But how are you determining that the answer to the question is "no"? You don't know if they've measured their particles or not. You only know that when you measure yours, you'll see a result that's correlated with what they see.
No it isn't. It shows that amino acids can come from inorganic compounds. Being on Earth isn't needed.
Sorry, what are you saying? We've discovered amino acids all over the place in space. The experiment showing that amino acids can arise naturally is thus largely redundant with the direct observation of naturally occurring amino acids.
Speaking as someone who actually knows a bit about the science; this really is a very good analogy.
Thanks! I added the disclaimer because I've had people complain that because the outcome of the marble-bag experiment doesn't precisely match the statistical behavior of quantum particles it is a bad analogy. But... that's not what the analogy is about.:)
it's more preventing the marbles from falling into random buckets of paint (ie: getting their state changed by various environmental factors), and providing less then no information.
Isn't this part of the appeal of the quantum network -- if environmental factors like a dude sniffing your packets broke the entanglement, you could detect it? I guess if you can't prevent the environment from breaking entanglement all the time then that's a problem.:) Are there other applications for this known?
So is there anything you could actually accomplish with this "network"?
Yes! Because measuring the state of the particles breaks the entanglement, in a quantum network you would theoretically be able to tell if someone was listening in -- you'd send the correlation information along with the regular data, and if it didn't line up with what you saw in your particles at your end, then you'd know that the entanglement had been broken and someone had sniffed your packets.
The application would be key exchange. You could just send a shared key over the insecure network, and if nobody intercepted it, then you're good to go.
This is how I understand it, anyway.
The article is indeed wrong about the "zero latency" aspect. If the researchers were actually claiming to be able to send information instantaneously then they'd be a lot more obvious about it -- see the recent ICARUS FTL neutrino result where the mere hint of FTL communication resulted in international attention and a constant barrage of headlines.
In Morse Code you can control what state the wire is in without destroying it before a single bit is sent. In Morse Code you can measure the output of the wire without similarly destroying it.
Observing spin does not destroy entanglement.
No. Measuring spin causes the particle to take on a definite state, breaking the entanglement, as surely as measuring it's momentum.
Even if it didn't, though, you still couldn't communicate. You'd just know that a longer sequence of spin data you saw would be correlated with the other end. Interacting with the particle to change the spin would break the entanglement and they would not see a result correlated with the spin you gave the particle.
When you change the state of one, it changes the state of another. Why could you not just view the state as a way of transferring information?
Because you can't control the state that it collapses to when you measure it and break the entanglement. You can't tell whether or not the person on the other end has already done this. All you know is that whatever state you measure, they will see a correlated result. Which you already knew; you've learned nothing.
A useful analogy* -- it's like you and the person you want to "communicate" with put two marbles, one red and one black, into two bags. You randomly pick one, your partner takes the other. You fly apart at 0.9c for a while. Then you look in your bag. It's a red marble. You now "instantly" know that your partner has a black marble -- but you haven't actually communicated anything.
* It's just an analogy; the fact that it doesn't obey Bell's theorem is immaterial to understanding why you haven't communicated anything.
You're wrong. Quantum entanglement does not allow any information to be transferred faster than light.
Sitting a million miles away from your partner with your entangled particle, the only thing you know is that you and your distant partner will measure a correlated result from that particle -- a fact you already knew a million years ago when you parted company in your very-nearly-light-speed ship.
You do not know, and can not control, what the value will be. You do not know if the other person has measured their particle's state or not. Measuring the state destroys the entanglement. All you know after is that the result you got will be correlated with what they get, or got.
No information transfer is possible.
However entanglement is useful for other things. Like networks where you can detect if someone snooped on your packets.
Indeed -- not God, but Ducks! Some might say they're one in the same (especially the ducks). And given ducks' well-known sexual proclivities, a theory of panspermia where basically every object in the galactic vicinity, even those with no chance of the payload taking root, being "inseminated", makes a lot of sense.
Of course Miller-Urey is pretty irrelevant now that we've found amino acids floating in clouds in space. They're everywhere.
Anyway, so we're accepting that spontaneous assembly of self-replicating molecules is possible in principle, but appealing to the low probability of the right conditions appearing. Well, billions of years of constant change due to geologic activity and countless deep-ocean vents of varying compositions, plus the fact that we're here, suggests that while the probability may be low, the expected value of the experiment over that time frame is not so low.
Even making Europa would be kind of like hitting a cockroach with a needle from across a football stadium.
True. Now explode a pile of trillions of needles and see if any one of them hit the cockroach.
Oh to be the house, if this scientist ever landed in Vegas with a wallet-load...
If the bet was that any of the visitors to Vegas would win the slot machine jackpot, the house might not be as willing to make the wager as you.
Of course they'd only make that decision after doing what this scientist did, and actually calculating the expected pay-out. Estimating probabilities by gut feel isn't going to make you a winner in Vegas, even if you are the house.
Not all real beers with flavor are particularly bitter... they're just not watered-down-just-a-hint-of-piss U.S. Macrobrews.
Also lots of adults enjoy a bitter flavor -- I say adults just because this is usually a taste that develops later. If it was just about getting shit faced vodka does the job much more efficiently. Nope, I likes my bitter beers because I likes my bitter beers.
Is your immunity to nuance something you enable on demand or do you see everything in binary? Is this a practiced ability, or an innate blindness? Are you proud of it?
Indeed, the keeping chickens is on the rise here in the U.S., and any woman who wishes to breed chickens for food would need to have at least one cock.
You didn't realize that the creator of a cartoon can make their cartoon city in any place they want, and make it bordered by any other place they want?
Really?
I'm surprised you also didn't point out that the real Springfield, OR isn't occupied by 2-dimensional 4-fingered cartoons, hasn't ever been taken over by aliens, never had the sun blocked out by the nuclear plant owner's giant sunshade, or damaged to the tune of millions of dollars on a regular basis by the town's lovable buffoon.
He didn't say Avatar was only successful because of 3D, he said Avatar shows that 3D hasn't failed -- which is true.
3D definitely contributed to that $1.6 billion take. Extra ticket sales and more importantly higher ticket prices made it worth it. That's the only reason everyone and their brother jumped on the 3D bandwagon. That's the only reason Titanic was converted to 3D.
Sure Avatar was a good movie in its own right (I'd argue with 'well scripted' but whatever). That just shows that the actual process of making the movie still matters. On the other hand, Clash of the Titans made money.
Raw dollars are also not a good measure of popularity of the S3D version over the 2D version, because you're not adjusting for the increased ticket price.
But raw dollars are a fantastic measure of how successful the studio considers the 3D version. It's the only measure that ultimately matters. You better believe the studios see that increased ticket price as a prime motivator for 3D movies.
3D won't be considered a failure until those raw dollars say it's not worth doing. Sorry but nobody who matters cares only about ticket sales.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a 'handshake' that each of you sends via your respective 'sending' particles.
Sending anything at all is the problem. You can't.
Measuring or modifying your particle breaks the entanglement with the other. You can't control what the other person will see, you can't tell if they've checked. How then do you send your handshake?
Both sides have a bag of say 10,000 serialized, entangled particles and the guy holding the bag in DC asks, "Have they launched anything yet?" "No."
But how are you determining that the answer to the question is "no"? You don't know if they've measured their particles or not. You only know that when you measure yours, you'll see a result that's correlated with what they see.
But if I didn't fuck up, how would I be able to keep striving to improve?
Yeah... I'm not buying it either...
No it isn't. It shows that amino acids can come from inorganic compounds. Being on Earth isn't needed.
Sorry, what are you saying? We've discovered amino acids all over the place in space. The experiment showing that amino acids can arise naturally is thus largely redundant with the direct observation of naturally occurring amino acids.
Speaking as someone who actually knows a bit about the science; this really is a very good analogy.
Thanks! I added the disclaimer because I've had people complain that because the outcome of the marble-bag experiment doesn't precisely match the statistical behavior of quantum particles it is a bad analogy. But... that's not what the analogy is about. :)
it's more preventing the marbles from falling into random buckets of paint (ie: getting their state changed by various environmental factors), and providing less then no information.
Isn't this part of the appeal of the quantum network -- if environmental factors like a dude sniffing your packets broke the entanglement, you could detect it? I guess if you can't prevent the environment from breaking entanglement all the time then that's a problem. :) Are there other applications for this known?
So is there anything you could actually accomplish with this "network"?
Yes! Because measuring the state of the particles breaks the entanglement, in a quantum network you would theoretically be able to tell if someone was listening in -- you'd send the correlation information along with the regular data, and if it didn't line up with what you saw in your particles at your end, then you'd know that the entanglement had been broken and someone had sniffed your packets.
The application would be key exchange. You could just send a shared key over the insecure network, and if nobody intercepted it, then you're good to go.
This is how I understand it, anyway.
The article is indeed wrong about the "zero latency" aspect. If the researchers were actually claiming to be able to send information instantaneously then they'd be a lot more obvious about it -- see the recent ICARUS FTL neutrino result where the mere hint of FTL communication resulted in international attention and a constant barrage of headlines.
I think the bigger question then becomes, why does your very-nearly-light-speed ship take a year to travel a single mile?
It doesn't. The pit stops to refuel are really long though.
How is this any different than, say, Morse code?
In Morse Code you can control what state the wire is in without destroying it before a single bit is sent. In Morse Code you can measure the output of the wire without similarly destroying it.
Observing spin does not destroy entanglement.
No. Measuring spin causes the particle to take on a definite state, breaking the entanglement, as surely as measuring it's momentum.
Even if it didn't, though, you still couldn't communicate. You'd just know that a longer sequence of spin data you saw would be correlated with the other end. Interacting with the particle to change the spin would break the entanglement and they would not see a result correlated with the spin you gave the particle.
When you change the state of one, it changes the state of another. Why could you not just view the state as a way of transferring information?
Because you can't control the state that it collapses to when you measure it and break the entanglement. You can't tell whether or not the person on the other end has already done this. All you know is that whatever state you measure, they will see a correlated result. Which you already knew; you've learned nothing.
A useful analogy* -- it's like you and the person you want to "communicate" with put two marbles, one red and one black, into two bags. You randomly pick one, your partner takes the other. You fly apart at 0.9c for a while. Then you look in your bag. It's a red marble. You now "instantly" know that your partner has a black marble -- but you haven't actually communicated anything.
* It's just an analogy; the fact that it doesn't obey Bell's theorem is immaterial to understanding why you haven't communicated anything.
You're wrong. Quantum entanglement does not allow any information to be transferred faster than light.
Sitting a million miles away from your partner with your entangled particle, the only thing you know is that you and your distant partner will measure a correlated result from that particle -- a fact you already knew a million years ago when you parted company in your very-nearly-light-speed ship.
You do not know, and can not control, what the value will be. You do not know if the other person has measured their particle's state or not. Measuring the state destroys the entanglement. All you know after is that the result you got will be correlated with what they get, or got.
No information transfer is possible.
However entanglement is useful for other things. Like networks where you can detect if someone snooped on your packets.
God? (Ducks!)
Indeed -- not God, but Ducks! Some might say they're one in the same (especially the ducks). And given ducks' well-known sexual proclivities, a theory of panspermia where basically every object in the galactic vicinity, even those with no chance of the payload taking root, being "inseminated", makes a lot of sense.
Of course Miller-Urey is pretty irrelevant now that we've found amino acids floating in clouds in space. They're everywhere.
Anyway, so we're accepting that spontaneous assembly of self-replicating molecules is possible in principle, but appealing to the low probability of the right conditions appearing. Well, billions of years of constant change due to geologic activity and countless deep-ocean vents of varying compositions, plus the fact that we're here, suggests that while the probability may be low, the expected value of the experiment over that time frame is not so low.
Even making Europa would be kind of like hitting a cockroach with a needle from across a football stadium.
True. Now explode a pile of trillions of needles and see if any one of them hit the cockroach.
Oh to be the house, if this scientist ever landed in Vegas with a wallet-load...
If the bet was that any of the visitors to Vegas would win the slot machine jackpot, the house might not be as willing to make the wager as you.
Of course they'd only make that decision after doing what this scientist did, and actually calculating the expected pay-out. Estimating probabilities by gut feel isn't going to make you a winner in Vegas, even if you are the house.
You are apparently expecting the wood to cut and assemble itself into a finished product
Which is ridiculous because Nano-assembler-board would cost way more than $200!
Not all real beers with flavor are particularly bitter... they're just not watered-down-just-a-hint-of-piss U.S. Macrobrews.
Also lots of adults enjoy a bitter flavor -- I say adults just because this is usually a taste that develops later. If it was just about getting shit faced vodka does the job much more efficiently. Nope, I likes my bitter beers because I likes my bitter beers.
Is your immunity to nuance something you enable on demand or do you see everything in binary? Is this a practiced ability, or an innate blindness? Are you proud of it?
Because your ass can't taste the denatonium benzoate!
Indeed, the keeping chickens is on the rise here in the U.S., and any woman who wishes to breed chickens for food would need to have at least one cock.
Leslie died?! D=
Man I can't believe I missed the news. Such a bummer. Austin is now officially less weird. :(
You didn't realize that the creator of a cartoon can make their cartoon city in any place they want, and make it bordered by any other place they want?
Really?
I'm surprised you also didn't point out that the real Springfield, OR isn't occupied by 2-dimensional 4-fingered cartoons, hasn't ever been taken over by aliens, never had the sun blocked out by the nuclear plant owner's giant sunshade, or damaged to the tune of millions of dollars on a regular basis by the town's lovable buffoon.
And knowing is half the battle!
In the Michael Bay "re-imagining" of Titanic, the iceberg is an alien.
He didn't say Avatar was only successful because of 3D, he said Avatar shows that 3D hasn't failed -- which is true.
3D definitely contributed to that $1.6 billion take. Extra ticket sales and more importantly higher ticket prices made it worth it. That's the only reason everyone and their brother jumped on the 3D bandwagon. That's the only reason Titanic was converted to 3D.
Sure Avatar was a good movie in its own right (I'd argue with 'well scripted' but whatever). That just shows that the actual process of making the movie still matters. On the other hand, Clash of the Titans made money.
Jawas Eventually Win Star-Wars -- I know, but what does that have to do with Hollywood Accounting?
Raw dollars are also not a good measure of popularity of the S3D version over the 2D version, because you're not adjusting for the increased ticket price.
But raw dollars are a fantastic measure of how successful the studio considers the 3D version. It's the only measure that ultimately matters. You better believe the studios see that increased ticket price as a prime motivator for 3D movies.
3D won't be considered a failure until those raw dollars say it's not worth doing. Sorry but nobody who matters cares only about ticket sales.