I wonder how long before we see major internet nodes connected via quantum entanglement.
The only way to make the data "make sense" is to share the measurements between both observers on a side channel.
But and that's the big but which i don't understand and couldn't get a decent explanation from anyone who i know has some / more understanding that i do in QPT.
Yes i understand if you got 2 observers Alice and Bob both of them with a pair of say you got a pair of 12 entangled quantum bytes.
Bob can't tell by random measurement if Alice has done something since the state of his 12 qbytes is "random", however if the interpreted say say's Hello World! or I Just Changed It why Bob can't superimpose additional information he has such as the knowledge of the English language to interpolate that Alice actually did something.
On top of that the no information theorem is also tied to the no-cloning theorem which conflicts with well with how some one would explain quantum teleportation.
The explanation I managed to find is that the no-cloning and no-teleportation theorems do not prevent quantum teleportation but rather classical one which means that you cannot encode a quantum state into a classical system and then clone/teleport that information into another quantum system, but you can do it from one quantum system to another which is where my brains starts to scream.
http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse599d/06wi/lectur...
This guy seems to believe otherwise and many other scientific breakthroughs were declared as impossible before they were done, it is unwise to cling to limiting beliefs like that as that kind of attitude prevents technological advancement.
In fact, it can be speculated that messages could be sent in the future as well as in the past, and other parallel universes as well.
People have been trying to use QM to show FTL communication since QM was discovered, it doesn't work.
>In fact, it can be speculated that messages could be sent in the future as well as in the past, and other parallel universes as well.
Yes, you can speculate whatever you want, that doesn't make it any truer.
And our current understanding of science is only limited in comparison to wild speculation. Those limits also happen to be the strongest point in its favor.
The experiments on Quantum Entanglement have only begun to intensify in recent years. With the advent of AI and commercial interest in the field due to communication opportunities, this may change rapidly.
When you say FTL communication is impossible that is a mere speculation at best, and a remarkably short sighted and laughable one in retrospect to paradigm shifts in the history of human technology. Scientific conservatism like that is a silly and shameful attempt to signal high status, which has held back human progress many times in the past. FTL communication is a major necessity and this field needs to be explored and pushed into hard without being held back by naysayers with dubious motives.
If we can use the quantum entanglement to determine if some Eve has intercepted a message between Alice and Bob, then why can't we use the fact of tampering as the data pipe? Why shouldn't Alice create the initial state and Bob use the quantum entanglement to communicate back? Use two constant photon streams between the two, one from Alice to Bob, one from Bob to Alice. The photons that are emitted are identical--it's notionally a carrier wave. Alice checks to see if Bob "tampers" with the photons. The actual data encoded in the photon itself isn't important.
Say I fire a laser beam to the Moon. It's going to take a second and a half to get there. I send one half of my entangled pair to the Moon and I send the other half down a fiberoptic delay line. In 1.5 seconds, I start checking whether or not my entangled photons have been tampered with, and that is the data stream back from the moon.
You can't; quantum key distribution requires a classical channel as well. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution#BB84_...
>After Bob has measured all the photons, he communicates with Alice over the public classical channel.
Edit: also, "I don't understand the limitation that "neither Alice nor Bob is allowed, in any way, to affect the preparation of the initial state." Why shouldn't Alice create the initial state?"
If Alice creates the initial state, she can send a message encoded within.
But hey, it is FTL anyway.
Was my explanation lacking?
No.
> when she and Bob next meet on planet X and tells him in person how devastated she is, was it Alice that really generated that information? Was it Alice's nervous system?
Yes. The info may also have had an earlier cause, but that is completely screened off by Alice (in the technical sense of screen; see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/#S...).
>Do humans really generate any information at all that doesn't come from entangled systems?
I think you don't understand what entangled means; if I take two envelopes and put a 1 in the first and a 0 in the second, the envelopes aren't "entangled". Entanglement has a specific meaning, and doesn't just mean correlation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
Anyway, you seem to have some confusion over determinism and physics, but it doesn't really have to do with FTL.