Live data from Hacker News

Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

forbes.com

121–130 of 166 posts

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#121
post #51

I’ve been working on quantum computing and quantum communication for 15 years now and what I really want people to know is that entanglement is “beyond classical correlation.” Correlation which is not beyond classical is shaking up a shoebox with a pair of gloves in it, and having two people take the gloves far away from each other to then observe what hand they got. They then understand the hand the other has. There…

I would describe classical correlations as downgraded entanglement. Correlation is what's left when entanglement decoheres / undergoes uncontrolled phase noise. Things you should be able to do, like win the Mermin-Peres magic square game 100% of the time, aren't possible when the entangled qubits you'd use to do it aren't protected from phase noise.

Decoherence is sort of analogous to air. It's so ubiquitous in your life that you don't really think about it, but you'd notice immediately if it was removed. Being steeped in air your whole life has twisted your physical intuitions. That's why Aristotle thought "objects come to rest" when actually objects move at constant speed unless acted upon by a force. Similarly, being steeped in decoherence has twisted your physical intuitions. Like thinking "adding more ways for something to happen must make it more likely" or "a particle's position is independent of its momentum" or "I can measure an object without affecting it". But actually different paths can interfere, and momentum is the Fourier transform of position, and measurements apply phase noise.

Decoherence is so ubiquitous that it's a huge challenge to engineer systems that suppress it. This is why quantum computers are so hard to make, and why quantum error correction has so much more overhead compared to classical error correction. Classical error correction only has to fix bit flips, and it can do so by making phase flips worse (which it does). Quantum error correction has to simultaneously fix bit flips and phase flips.

When two particles are entangled, rotating one around the X axis by an angle A and the other by an angle B and then measuring produces measurement results that agree with probability cos^2(A-B). Same as the probability of a photon with polarization angle A passing through a polarizing filter with angle B. Decohere the entanglement before the rotations, and the measurements will instead agree with probability cos^2(A)cos^2(B) + sin^2(A)sin^2(B). Note that cos^2(A-B) = cos^2(A)cos^2(B) + sin^2(A) sin^2(B) + 2 cos(A) cos(B) sin(A) sin(B), meaning decoherence is taking away the 2 cos(A) cos(B) sin(A) sin(B) interference term. That's the downgrade. That's what makes your best possible CHSH win rate drops from 85% to 75%. If entanglement allowed sending messages, the initial CHSH win rate would be 100% instead of 85%.

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#122
post #92
post #51

I’ve been working on quantum computing and quantum communication for 15 years now and what I really want people to know is that entanglement is “beyond classical correlation.” Correlation which is not beyond classical is shaking up a shoebox with a pair of gloves in it, and having two people take the gloves far away from each other to then observe what hand they got. They then understand the hand the other has. There…

My understanding is that it's like two of the same scratch-off lottery ticket. There are two spots you can scratch, only one has a prize, we don't know which one that is but it's same for both tickets. The tickets are taken to separate rooms. The people in each room then pick a spot and scratch it. How likely is it that at least one of them will win? The odds of one scratch winning are of course 50%, and the odds of…

> The CHSH experiment suggests otherwise: that when one person loses the other person is less likely to also lose, such that the likelihood of both losing is only 15%. How can this happen? I haven't a clue.

That’s easy, even without quantum mechanics. All you need is to have a different distribution of lottery tickets. Print tickets such that, if one wins, the other is more likely to win, which you can do by having the number of winning spots per ticket be random and correlated. For example, there could be a 50% chance that neither ticket has a winning spot and a 50% chance that each ticket has one winning spot.

But you could imagine a pair of tickets with internal radios, such that, when you scratch one, it tells the other one, and together they simulate a general function where the joint probability of (win on ticket 1, win on ticket 2). If you set up the probabilities appropriately, then you can’t use the tickets to send a signal, and the result is referred to in the literature as “non-signaling boxes” (the magic tickets are the boxes).

Quantum mechanical entanglement can do something like this, except that the probability distributions you can generate with entanglement are a subset of the more general non-signaling boxes.

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#123

This is my two cents: Maybe entanglement is a much more 'immediately physical' phenomenon than 'spooky action at a distance'. Just guessing as a layman here: maybe entangled particles are just physically connected {along some higher dimension / some unknown process}. Spinning together (effectively switching spaces constantly) such that they are always the same state. So the undetermined measurement stems from being u…

> maybe entangled particles are just physically connected {along some higher dimension / some unknown process}. I have always thought this might be a possibility - but wouldn't we be able to observe this somehow? Is it actually possible this could happen and there's no way we could observe it? Gravity distorts space-time - but it's observable. For these particles to be connected still - wouldn't that be some disturba…

I imagine we haven't figured out how to observe it yet. Same as anything else we couldn't observe before we did.

Ruling out "it's magic", we can presume that everything in the universe is linked logically somehow, the link between the two entangled particles must exist and we just haven't been able to observe it yet.

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#124
post #122
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that it's like two of the same scratch-off lottery ticket. There are two spots you can scratch, only one has a prize, we don't know which one that is but it's same for both tickets. The tickets are taken to separate rooms. The people in each room then pick a spot and scratch it. How likely is it that at least one of them will win? The odds of one scratch winning are of course 50%, and the odds of…

> The CHSH experiment suggests otherwise: that when one person loses the other person is less likely to also lose, such that the likelihood of both losing is only 15%. How can this happen? I haven't a clue. That’s easy, even without quantum mechanics. All you need is to have a different distribution of lottery tickets. Print tickets such that, if one wins, the other is more likely to win, which you can do by having t…

> Print tickets such that, if one wins, the other is more likely to win, which you can do by having the number of winning spots per ticket be random and correlated.

In order to refute this you need to get into the CHSH experiment's design, which doesn't use the raw detection rate but compares detections that should not have similar results. Imagine that both tickets have a prize on the right side, and both participants have agreed to always choose the left side. CHSH predicts that some of the time the prize will change sides: but, crucially, only from the losing side to the winning side, and only if the other ticket lost, and even if the tickets are revealed close enough in time that a signal could not propagate between them.

The conclusion of CHSH is that detections are correlated to the angle between the sensors, and not the angle between the sensors and the source.

This makes absolutely no sense. There is no such thing as a winning or losing side until it's been scratched, and even if the ticket were able to randomly switch from a loser to a winner, how would it ever know that the other ticket was also a loser? And if it's true that detection is correlated to the angle between detectors, it seems easy enough to build a statistical system around variable sensor angles that is able to communicate instantaneously.

I might not have interpreted everything you said, either. Internet forums aren't the best way to discuss deep problems.

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#125
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the measurement choices are not aligned, the outcomes are also random Just to be a bit pedantic, as it can otherwise lead to some confusion: the measurement outcomes are always random. If the particles are entangled, then it is the correlations that are not random.

This is still a part that annoys me. I have asked why you can't use the correlations to facilitate communication, and people always seem to think I'm asking why you can't do this per particle. I get that the the individual measures are basically useless on their own. Question is if the correlations can be confirmed so well, why can't that be used?

> I have asked why you can't use the correlations to facilitate communication

But how could they?

Charlie prepares a pair of entangled electrons and sends one each to Alice and Bob. Alice performs a spin measurement along some angle and, entirely randomly, gets either up or down as a result.

Alice and Bob decide on their measurement settings and measure a bunch of electrons using the same angle for each measurement. They can even agree in advance so they both know which angle the other will use.

After the run, Alice will have a bunch of measurement results which are roughly 50% up and 50% down. Bob too will have a bunch of measurement results which are roughly 50% up and 50% down. Assuming ideal detectors and such, there will be no discernible pattern to the ups and downs for either.

Only if the afterwards come together and compare their results pair for pair will they see the quantum correlations between the value in each pair. For some angles, they're more likely to be anti-correlated, and for some angles there doesn't seem to be any correlation.

That is, if they both used the same angle, the they'll find that each time Alice measured up then Bob measured down, and every time Alice measured down then Bob measured up. And if they used a similar but not equal angle, then it's more likely that when Alice measured up then Bob measured down, and vice versa.

And since they by now know that this experiment has been done before and the predictions of quantum mechanics hold, they can even predict this result. However what good does it do for Alice? After all, regardless of measurement settings Bob will measure a uniform 50/50 distribution of ups and downs.

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#126
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To expand on this, it uses quantum entanglement for FTL communication over a distance of 4 light years. Still a great story, though. Although I read the book when it first came out, I have basically zero memory of it, so I don't recall if FTL communication is essential to the story. However, having just watched the first season of the Netflix season, I explicitly noticed that even though it mentions use of FTL comm…

FTL comms are absolutely essential to the story, and it is specifically accomplished using quantum entanglement. When Evans speaks with the San Ti/Trisolarians, he is talking to them via one of a pair of sophons - quantum entangled protons.

Also the "there are no secrets" angle is pretty dependent on the FTL too.

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#127
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To expand on this, it uses quantum entanglement for FTL communication over a distance of 4 light years. Still a great story, though. Although I read the book when it first came out, I have basically zero memory of it, so I don't recall if FTL communication is essential to the story. However, having just watched the first season of the Netflix season, I explicitly noticed that even though it mentions use of FTL comm…

FTL comms are absolutely essential to the story, and it is specifically accomplished using quantum entanglement. When Evans speaks with the San Ti/Trisolarians, he is talking to them via one of a pair of sophons - quantum entangled protons.

Understood that that's the conceit, but referring to purely the initial season on Netflix, it would be perfectly substitutable to have Evans speaking not /through/ a Sophon, but /to/ a Sophon -- a sufficiently-intelligent, sufficiently-aligned computer that can represent the San Ti interests fully, and react as a San Ti would. Nothing that has happened in the story /so far/ requires a real-time update on the status of the San Ti fleet, or otherwise an actual round-trip communication; it could all be incorporated into the San Ti model of a sufficiently advanced AI for the purpose of representation. (Even as an AI skeptic, I do think that such an AI is less of a technical reach than FTL communications.)

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe entangled particles are just physically connected {along some higher dimension / some unknown process}. I have always thought this might be a possibility - but wouldn't we be able to observe this somehow? Is it actually possible this could happen and there's no way we could observe it? Gravity distorts space-time - but it's observable. For these particles to be connected still - wouldn't that be some disturba…

I imagine we haven't figured out how to observe it yet. Same as anything else we couldn't observe before we did. Ruling out "it's magic", we can presume that everything in the universe is linked logically somehow, the link between the two entangled particles must exist and we just haven't been able to observe it yet.

I was wondering if it's somehow theoretically possible there is a link but for some reason we would never be able to observe it.

Re: Why quantum entanglement doesn't allow faster-than-light communication (2016)

#130
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is still a part that annoys me. I have asked why you can't use the correlations to facilitate communication, and people always seem to think I'm asking why you can't do this per particle. I get that the the individual measures are basically useless on their own. Question is if the correlations can be confirmed so well, why can't that be used?

> I have asked why you can't use the correlations to facilitate communication But how could they? Charlie prepares a pair of entangled electrons and sends one each to Alice and Bob. Alice performs a spin measurement along some angle and, entirely randomly, gets either up or down as a result. Alice and Bob decide on their measurement settings and measure a bunch of electrons using the same angle for each measurement.…

Agreed that it doesn't do Alice any good, necessarily; but it seems that it does get information between Bob and Charlie? If the detector at Bob's site influences what Charlie would see at an aggregate level, do they have to wait for the end of the experiment to know? Couldn't they make an inference at every hour on what the detector was doing at the other end? Even if they were a lightyear away from each other.

If the answer really is that they have to wait for the end of the entire experiment, I think that settles it for me. Will think some more on it. (And again, as noted, I have not thought that hard on this. Even with my odd "would this work" you need some way to get entangled particles sent across stupid large distances. Which... already seems silly?)

Post reply on HN