Sustained Entanglement
One step closer to the transporter beam. Hurry up, would ya? I want off this rock, (alive, preferably).
___
Hat-tip to Jeff W.
___
Hat-tip to Jeff W.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 10:21
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Patients
|
|
Contact Jar(egg)head
Recent Ravings
- Thursday Tunes
- Joy!
- At the Car Show
- The Art of Teaching
- Tiffany Meth-Head
- Back to the 80's
- Friday Timewaster
- Global Climate Data Change
- You know things are screwed up when...
- Money Doesn't Make You Smart
Recurring Rants
- Global Warming
- Darwin Awards
- Everybody Panic!
- Cow Wars
- Salad Days
- Ze Games! Ze Games!
- All-Natural Treats
- SFL
- Book Recommendations
4 Comments:
I'd prefer to not have my atoms scattered all over the galaxy, thank you.
“I teleported home last night with Ron and Sid and Meg
Ron stole Meggy's heart away and I got Sidney's leg.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I have a question about this and I don’t have many people that I can ask. So here goes….
The problem with Quantum Entanglement is you can’t watch it. For example, Joe and Jane have a quantum entanglement system up and running. Joe, who is on Earth switches a 1 to a 0, Jane in the gamma quadrant doesn’t know it happen. If she watches the element and waits for a change (as I understand things) it won’t happen. People tell me conventional sub-light speed methods will still be necessary to inform Jane a change has occurred (Disclaimer, I’m an IT guy so I have limited inelegance). My questions is, can Joe and Jane use a RSA algorithm (Google if necessary) type time sequence and set things up to look at the particle at pre-defined intervals without having to use conventional sub light speed methods to say the particle state changed? Or are we still stuck with sub-light speed communications?
-JW
"People tell me conventional sub-light speed methods will still be necessary to inform Jane a change has occurred"
This would only be the case in a purely Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which holds that existence follows observation. More classical interpretation simple requires the acceptance of quantum coincidence. So the quantum message would not need to be preceded by a sub-light message in order to be received, (which would effectively render quantum radio useless).
I've always had huge qualms with Copenhagen interpretation, because it flirts with the idea that reality is a formation of human thought and observation. That's dangerously close to a religion.
Post a Comment
<< Home