Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–166 of 166 posts

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

#161

Post by ranguna »

superposeur wrote: post #159
ranguna wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bookkeeping for __what__? Bookiping for things that happen so fast and at such a small scale that our current technological tools cannot fully capture data with enough precision and accuracy for us to make an good model of the underlying behaviour. Imagine you put a spinning ball on top of a frozen lake on a windy day. You are going to observe the ball spin continously towards the same orientation until several gus…

You describe a local hidden variable theory such as has been definitively ruled out by Bell/CHSH inequality experiments (see, e.g. (2022 Nobel Prize)[ https://www.nobelprize.org/all-nobel-prizes-2022/ ] ). But even if you could make some baroque version of a model like this (with the position of one ball instantaneously reacting to other far away balls perhaps and some pilot waves) invoking it still wouldn’t answer m…

Maybe it's things smaller than whatever smallest thing we have been able to measure.

I'll read up the inequality experiment.

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

#162

Post by huytersd »

mrkeen wrote: post #3

The gap I still have in my understanding: One hypothesis is that there is no spooky action. One particle was 'always' going to resolve one way, likewise with the other. Like inspecting 'heads' on one side of a coin 'forces' 'tails' onto the other side. I accept that this coin-hypothesis has been disproved by people who actually know what they're talking about. But to me, this implies that you should build your spooky…

Yeah you can’t know whether something has been measured or not. You measure it, you get a value. You don’t know if it has been measured/collapsed on the other end.

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

#164

Post by cthalupa »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #2

"3 Body Problem" has so many problems! Wake me up when the next "Expanse"-level sci-fi lands.

I mean, a single sophon could have eliminated humanity by itself using a fraction of the power presented as being possible in the books, in hundreds of different ways.

But I do think it's worth suspending disbelief a bit to try and enjoy the other ideas presented. It's fiction for entertainment, not a serious warning to stop broadcasting signals out into the universe.

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

#165

Post by nobodyandproud »

zare_st wrote: post #77
nobodyandproud wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-Locality doesn’t mean information travels faster than c. The main article attempts to explain why instantaneous “spooky action at a distance” is real, yet information can’t be relayed this way.

For specific cases, asm is faster than c. I'll show myself out

You win. I truly appreciated the joke; and two days and I still couldn't think of something on par.

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

#166

Post by ynniv »

amluto wrote: post #156
ynniv wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pointing out that classical (non-quantum) scratch-off lottery tickets can have the property you described. No, if A always scratches the left, and B alternates between left and right, your classical trick of having some tickets with two winners and some with two losers won’t produce the correct win distributions for B’s choices. The CHSH game is an attempt at explaining the experiment. The core of CHSH is a for…

> No, if A always scratches the left, and B alternates between left and right, your classical trick of having some tickets with two winners and some with two losers won’t produce the correct win distributions for B’s choices. My proposal was intended to be independent of A and B’s strategy. As a fully worked-out example, suppose the tickets are printed like this: With probability 42.5%: all positions win With probabi…

My point wasn't to derive the best classical strategy, but to describe the problem in simple terms that people who aren't familiar with quantum mechanics could understand. QM is a very academic field, verging on intentionally obtuse, and that keeps non-experts from participating. Cozy if you're entrenched, but not the best for fresh approaches.
Post reply on HN