Secure Communication Via Quantum Entangled Particles

I have insisted quantum entanglement could not be used for communication since the same state of two particles, being just the same particle in two places at once cannot one send and the other receive as if the information stream were being sent via a tunnel or wire.

It didn't occur to me to use the particle itself in two places at once as a binary base2 switch 0|1 [on | off] switch for something like Morse Code. It has been illustrated with "Alice" and "Bob" that when Alice changed the state of her particle A, Bob's same state of the same particle A would change state instantaneously with her having changed states even if the particle (singular) were separated by the width of the universe itself. That is communication . . . secure communication! Alice keeps doing it (changing the state of particle A), dot - dot - dot- dash - dot, (whatever, I don't know Morse code) she is communicating with Bob. When done, Bob changes the state of particle A (the same particle) on his end, dot - dash - dash, dot (whatever), and Alice has received communication from Bob.

Now the only problem would be making sure that same particle A in two different places in the universe were (plural) always being kept in an identical environment unaffected by differing outside influences, forcing particle A into states B and C respectively (no longer the same particle in two places at once but now two distinct particles in two places), annihilating Alice and Bob's ability to use it for communication.

Now what if Alice and Bob had a host of the same particles A, particles B, particles C.... to communicate with. They have a computer now, exactly the single same computer, in two or more places separated universe wide at once.

Get enough quantum entangled particles working in the system, you'd have a networked system of quantum entangled computers instantaneously communicating with others around the universe . . . just as long as the same one didn't try to communicate with itself at the same time from two places at once. Or two of them with a third, whatever . . . they would have to get in line, one at a time communicating by [0 | 1] or [on | off], whatever, switching (and only with themselves in two or more places at once . . . meaning two or more computers, or fractal setups, in every shop).
 
Last edited:
The more I think about it, either science is wrong about quantum entanglement ("spooky action at a distance") requiring similar conditions to work, or it will work regardless of external influences, because Alice and Bob are themselves external influences and everything they do is external influence on the system. So, either quantum entanglement ("spooky action at a distance") exists, period! or it doesn't exist, period!

If it exists, we have a new physics or a different force, something, because quantum mechanics then has a special ability to disregard space and time distance and influence (to disregard scope) . . . and some other influences as well within scope . . . all as we assume them to be.
 
Last edited:
Two problems-
1) Alice has no control over heads/tails thus cannot convey information by the content.
2) Timing cannot be used to send a message since Bob cannot see his half of the entangled pair settle on a state. All he can do is probe it to see what its state is. Then he does not know if the state was settled upon earlier by Alice or if he just now did it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobbyQbit
Two problems-
1) Alice has no control over heads/tails thus cannot convey information by the content.
2) Timing cannot be used to send a message since Bob cannot see his half of the entangled pair settle on a state. All he can do is probe it to see what its state is. Then he does not know if the state was settled upon earlier by Alice or if he just now did it.
Unless it works, Bill. Unless they knew and know the states before and after. It isn't the "content" she and Bob are dealing in, Bill. ("If it exists we have a new physics or a different force" . . . a new and different force, or another and different dimension of a fundamental force -- of one or more of the four fundamental forces -- already existing.)
--------------------------

"God does not play dice with the universe!" -- Albert Einstein.

"Yes, God does play dice with the universe, only they're loaded!" -- Stephen Hawking.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Quantum bit = "qubit." A naming convention, and entity, that may come to either replace "particle" or in certain circumstances come to be interchangeable with it . . . crossing into territory I am very, very, familiar with, regardless of being retired from direct involvement in it for more than twenty-years.
 
Last edited:
May 31, 2023
55
20
35
Visit site
Quantum bit = "qubit." A naming convention, and entity, that may come to either replace "particle" or in certain circumstances come to be interchangeable with it . . . crossing into territory I am very, very, familiar with, regardless of being retired from direct involvement in it for more than twenty-years.
It puzzles me how they achieve entangled particles like electrons. I realise they use the spin properties of one being UP spin and the other DOWN for superposition but cannot fathom how it's done. I've read (what I think misleading) articles on splitting the electron, but you cannot as it has no sub-particles and has charge, mass and properties like Spin. Is the entanglement really the same electron with the probability wave function for the superposition of it's Spin ?
 
It puzzles me how they achieve entangled particles like electrons. I realise they use the spin properties of one being UP spin and the other DOWN for superposition but cannot fathom how it's done. I've read (what I think misleading) articles on splitting the electron, but you cannot as it has no sub-particles and has charge, mass and properties like Spin. Is the entanglement really the same electron with the probability wave function for the superposition of it's Spin ?
"Superposition"? So, in fact the same electron in the same place, occupying the same space (though maybe, possibly, probably, a slightly different time), splits into electron / positron state. Or, rather, it's already there. Fundamentally it's called the "weak force" (W(+1) W(-1) Z(0)). At least as I see it to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobbyQbit
May 31, 2023
55
20
35
Visit site
"Superposition"? So, in fact the same electron in the same place, occupying the same space (though maybe, possibly, probably, a slightly different time), splits into electron / positron state. Or, rather, it's already there. Fundamentally it's called the "weak force" (W(+1) W(-1) Z(0)). At least as I see it to be.
Ah, so is it electron/positron pairs created by positron emission radioactive decay (through weak interactions), or by pair production from a sufficiently energetic photon which is interacting with an atom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
Ah, so is it electron/positron pairs created by positron emission radioactive decay (through weak interactions), or by pair production from a sufficiently energetic photon which is interacting with an atom.
There is nothing like beginning to realize unifying all four fundamental forces into a GUT, is there? The weak force is the force I least understood until recently. Now I'm driving it, and all the team of four horses' (of the Apocalypse?!?! ("Apocalypse," in fact meaning "something deeply hidden")), no matter the direction.
 
Ah, so is it electron/positron pairs created by positron emission radioactive decay (through weak interactions), or by pair production from a sufficiently energetic photon which is interacting with an atom.
I'm not sure where you are going with the above, and I was happy to read it all again (I had read it before and set it aside as the unnecessary complex detail I didn't want or need). I'm talking it, along with the strong force, being always around, as in local-finite renormalization and regularization at any scale to infinity (infinite and infinitesimal non-locals always), and it is that simple rather than complex.

We are told the fundamental forces of strong and weak only apply to the micro-verse. I've always considered that hogwash. I've even seen those two forces at work in we humans and throughout the history of human and other life interactions.

I've realized for some time, for a long time, that quantum mechanics, ultimately, regardless of the relative holographic universe we consider real (the world in which Dr. Samuel Johnson, circa 1687CE, kicked the rock), couldn't care less about scope and scale. The strong and weak forces are as much scoped and scaled up and out into the macro-verse as they are scoped and scaled down and into the micro-verse. Chaos Theory's zoom (vertical) universe of an infinite number of alternating levels, every other of which is fractal, and the whole always reducing, renormalizing and regularizing ultimately, to two, one level of the two which is fractal (always Lilliputian fine detail).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RobbyQbit

TRENDING THREADS