Quantum Stuff

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:05 am

I put forth a theory in my book, only to find out it's already being tried! So some of the stuff is true, but does anybody have any more information?
The way I have it (supposed to be completely fictional, but reasonable, ya know? turns out it's not so fictional, i was wondering if I could compeltely make it factual). Plus, I just wanted to say "this is COOL!"

The out-of-system astronauts are carrying a type of quantum radio with them. This radio has recieving atoms quantumly entangled with atoms in the other radio on Earth. When one of these atoms has a state changed about it, the other atom will recieve that state change. This allows for instantaneous comminucation over great distances. However, it's very hard to find atom pairs, so they were created by scientists. it is also forseeable in the future to create a matter teleportation machine through the concept of a "fax machine"; i.e. a machine that reads the molecular makeup of an objects, then transmits that makeup to the remote end.

I know scientists have already transfered information quantumly through atoms, but where do they get these pairs? Are they fairly common occurances near to each other or did they create these atoms?

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:05 am

yep, scientists must manually quantum entangle the atoms (atoms?).

then whereever that other atom goes, it's partner atom will always mirror it's quantum state, no matter WHERE it is. "spooky action at a distance" indeed

.

originally i was hearing that it was instantaneous, but lately i've been hearing that it's more like the speed of light. i havn't looking into that bit yet.

there have been a lot of sweet theorys for uses to make of this technology, because atm it's considered absolutely un-interceptable. the data transmitted between the points is completely safe, and completely void of wires or even RF transmitions (it's "spooky").

some have been considering making network cards with the technology. because every quantum entanged atom can only be quantum entangled with ONE other atom, you'd have to make a closed network, with every network card relaying information to the next.

perhaps every network card would have a number of few REALTIVELY SEPERATELY quantum entangled atoms in them, for redundancy. thereby connecting you to a number of active quantum networks at once, using the "6 degrees of seperation"* principles you'd be able to talk to anyone in a maximum of only 6 hops.

(* this principle notes that everything is seperated from everything else by a maximum of only 6 hops. eg: i know a few hundred people. those few hundred people all seperately know a few hundred people themselves, keep going - it grows exponentially. it only takes 6 hops or less for you to have all of the people on earth accounted for.)

so if every network card has a certain amount of seperately entangled quantum atoms in it, it could perhaps be used for the basis of a wireless distance-irrelevant worldwide network.

...

you wrote a book?

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:48 am

As far as I'm concerned, you can only use this once.

The quantum entanglement resides in the fact that the atoms remain unobserved and thus equally share both quantom states. As soon as you observe an atom to determine it's state, you instantly know the state of the other atom no matter where it is. However, you can't just "change" the quantum state of an atom to something else, you have to create a new atom. In case of photons, the quantum state is carried by spin -- -1/2 or 1/2. If you take a photon with you, then you observe it, you know the state of both photons in the pair. However, you can't just change the spin value of a given photon.

So, you wrongfully interpret this whole quantum entanglement thing in order for it to do things you would like it to do, but it can't.

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:20 am

you wrote a book?

It's fiction, and WIP (I didn't write a book on quantum physics, don't worry

). I do plan on publishing it sometime, though.

So Tri, you're saying that once the states have been set, it's impossible to change them? That does kinda kill the whole idea of IOQL...

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:51 am

Just look at it this way: quantum mechanics allow the descision time at which a system makes a choice to be delayed. It can go past the point of choice without making a choice and enter a non-deterministic state. However, as soon as you gain knowledge of the descision made by observing -- looking at it -- you kill the quantum state by forcing it to adopt the path given by one descision. This creates the illusion that information is teleported in real time to the other particle, but in fact there is no such thing. It's just the fact that if a descision has to be made, it doesn't have to be at the time we humans deem intuitive or straightforward. When a photon pair is created, classic theories say that their quantum states are defined at the time of creation, in other words their states are determined and set, even if we don't look at them. Quantum theory says the state can be anything until you look at what it is. Basically, to the observer it's the same thing, but on paper it yields considerable mathematical freedom to solve certain problems.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:07 pm

i dunno tri, i've seen a whole lot written about these type of uses for this type of technology. they can't ALL be confused, perhaps they are using a different technique than you are suggesting.

tomorrow i'll see if i can look around for one particular webpage detailing how they did their enganglement experiments, because i'm sure it allowed for the type of utilisation that nitrofox was elluding to.
(what i can remember about it, was that it involved more than a simple 2 entangled particles (heh, not atoms). it involved 2 entanged particles PLUS a 3rd (or more?) particle that was used to either change or read the state or something.

Zer0Cool · Post by **Zer0Cool** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:13 pm

wow, where the hell did you guys get your education...i havn't got a clue wtf any of you are talking about. i understood photon, atom and quantum. That's pretty much it.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:22 pm

solely the internet

. quantum physics is a very new and exciting field, so online news of developments and discoverys in the field abounds.
i'm sure there's many "introduction to quantum physics" pages out there.
quantum physics is just the physics of subatomic particles (photons, quarks, etc) they can do really REALLY weird things.

the particular thing we are talking about is called "quantum entanglement". it's where 2 particles are linked, mystically joined somehow, not physically - they can be seperated and taken to other sides of the planet and they are still linked in the same weird manner (it's like, if you do something to the one particle, the other particle does it as well! it's like psychic twins

).
spooky.
and there are theorys on how this can be used for all manner of things, which is what we're talking about here.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:49 pm

Zer0Cool wrote:i understood photon, atom and quantum. That's pretty much it.

You'd be doing better than 99.9999% of people then. I've read many books on Quantum Physics, and I *still* don't understand THAT much!

Nitrofox, if you're wanting to base your SF novel of fact, then forget what these peeps say. Use whatever you like - but make it consistent.

The most important aspect of the "technologies" you use is they should have limits. Fuel-less, reactionless drives are a no-no in my book!

My personal take on communication over huge distances is that it IS impossible to transmit anything faster than light, but that it is NOT impossible to travel faster than light. The INTERESTING thing about this notion is that it requires a sort of "pony-express" to deliver messages, or robotic craft which do nothing except disseminate news and communications by whipping around known space...

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:13 pm

Mobius wrote:My personal take on communication over huge distances is that it IS impossible to transmit anything faster than light, but that it is NOT impossible to travel faster than light. The INTERESTING thing about this notion is that it requires a sort of "pony-express" to deliver messages, or robotic craft which do nothing except disseminate news and communications by whipping around known space...

Talk about using science as a religion

I don't care what is possible in the future or what is out there, I don't care for exploration. I just love to follow human thoughts that form abstract mathematical models. In that I am much, much closer to the human nature than you are. I consider myself studying the human mind through the evolution of thought in science. Human nature is the only thing worth studying in my opinion. Unfortunately, I'm way too rational to study philosophy or psychology; the only thing I have access to in that area is music.. One day I'll be ready..

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:34 pm

One of you try and read "The Universe Next Door". Some excellent quantum theories in there and a bunch of other crazy stuff like mirror matter, splitting electrons and time-machines within atoms. Fantastic book. Buy it!

One of the most exciting prospects of quantum technology is probably the quantum computer. If someone someday eventually manages to make one that works it could have processing speeds thousands or even millions of times faster than processors today.

And by the way the speed of the "information" that causes the change between the atoms is instantaneous, not the speed of light. It's actually been tested and proved I think.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:53 am

if you come across something that actually says which it is, instantaneous or speed of light, that would help a bunch robo. until then it's still rumour.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:20 am

Robo - confirmation of "spooky action over distance" faster than the speed of light would be the scientific discovery of the century. I think you may be wrong.

Tri - Human nature is a strange subject to consider - given that it's a non-constant. Whatever lights your fire man. I'm not criticising you here BTW.

Yeah - I'm not a student of human nature, I was just born 100 years too early. Or too late. I have yet to decide!

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:20 am

roid wrote:i dunno tri, i've seen a whole lot written about these type of uses for this type of technology. they can't ALL be confused, perhaps they are using a different technique than you are suggesting.

It's an interpretation. It's a theory. It's a concept. It really is nothing more than the physical interpretation of mathematics on paper.
Some things can be experimentally verified, though.

It's like particles with spin 1/2. If you rotate it 360 degrees, it's not what it looked like before the rotation. You have to rotate it 720 degrees in order to get the same view again. These things are thrashed by your intuition, but if you work on paper there is nothing holding you back. A 360 degree rotation is defined by a transformation matrix, and if you subject a particle with spin 1/2 to it you don't get the same result as the original (the result is negated, as matter of fact). You have to do two 360Â° rotations in order to get the same as the original.

It's kindof a shame that all of these mathematics are literally forced into interpretations supposed to be understandable by the masses, but which are biased and no longer offer any real truth. Considering the theory itself doesn't really offer absolute truth, either

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:25 am

It is truly amazing what you can learn when you pick up a book and read it.

I don't have any easy books in my library, ones with pretty pictures that don't have insanely complex mathematical formulas to explain quantum states. However, if you were to go to the bookstore and look in the science section, or even the library, you might find an up to date book on the matter and get some real knowledge, instead of the pseudo-science that is so prevalent on the Internet.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:40 am

Robo wrote:One of you try and read "The Universe Next Door". Some excellent quantum theories in there and a bunch of other crazy stuff like mirror matter, splitting electrons and time-machines within atoms. Fantastic book. Buy it!

Thanks for the link to the book. I've read other books like "the matter myth" about the works of edington and this is similar. The "arrow of time" was mentioned in case the universe was "closed". If it was, then the universe would begin a contraction phase where the arrow of time begins to go backwards, and things would begin to "unbreak" themselves.
I have a hard time believing that. To me the arrow of time always moves forward even in a contracting universe. I believe that there was time before the big bang too. I haven't looked at quantum stuff too much yet, so you guys are way over my head. But I learned what happens to light when it shines thru holes instead of slits where interferance lines show up.
I love this....keep talking please....and any more links would be appreciated.
Bettina

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:58 pm

Anyone want me to start a topic based on something from the book?

Topics include:
The notion that we caan all live forever...
Splitting of electrons...
Extra dimensions...
Is space dust actually bacteria?...
Which theory is fundemental - general relativity or quantum?
The arrow of time...

Pick one

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:11 pm

Anyone want me to start a topic based on something from the book?

Topics include:
The notion that we can all live forever...
Splitting of electrons...
Extra dimensions...
Is space dust actually bacteria?...
Which theory is fundemental - general relativity or quantum?
The arrow of time...

Pick one

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:04 pm

"The notion that we can all live forever"
"The arrow of time"

Those parts...I've been looking at this and would like some input

Bettina

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:06 pm

Before some of you start pooh poohing the teleportation concept as so much hyperbole, CNN just had a report the U.S. military is investing money in the concept. Not that this means anything but consider this. Way back in days of yore when wireless meant morse code, how many scientist would accept the idea you could piggyback voice or even images on a transmitted carrier wave.
If you answered no and they ridiculed the notion then, you'd be right. So something sound familiar today about entanglement and teleportation of at least data and how scientists respond?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:14 pm

Wow, this is deep, breaking matter down to pure energy, transmitting it, then reconstructing it, is not impossible, even transmitting DNA living tissue is possible too, but I wonder how they would transfer your "soul". (no religious intent here when I use the word soul). That is mind warping stuff.

Bettina

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:41 pm

bet51987 wrote:Wow, this is deep,
Bettina

Welcome to the DBB at it's finest.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:22 pm

Well this thread died fast.....
Bettina

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:35 pm

bet51987 wrote:Wow, this is deep, breaking matter down to pure energy, transmitting it, then reconstructing it, is not impossible, even transmitting DNA living tissue is possible too, but I wonder how they would transfer your "soul". (no religious intent here when I use the word soul). That is mind warping stuff.

Bettina

Without trying to derail the topic, consider the chemical machine theory seriously. A "3d fax" could send that without any problem, provided it could identify energy levels as well (great job sending a flawlessly copied but utterly dead body otherwise). Before you decide that that's too flat-planed and simple, be aware that we emit a lot of energy fields, the "soul" as you describe could exist as an ambient emission of the body.

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:59 am

I've been too busy to type a little bit from the book, promise you I'll do it soon

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:22 am

bet51987 wrote:Well this thread died fast.....
Bettina

Not everyone is talking about the same thing. Read it over again, find out who is saying what from which point of view and answer your own question

Sudanamaru · Post by **Sudanamaru** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:53 am

Quantum Physics is worst than SF in measure to reality. Remind me the story of The Naked King.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:38 pm

Except that quantum physics very probably is real... all its predictions do happen.

I think the instant people knew it was possible to transmit a carrier wave, encoding images on it would have obviously been possible to anyone who really understood it. Modulation isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination.

Obviously, one would first have to decide how to encode images, but that's not a stretch either.

Sudanamaru · Post by **Sudanamaru** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:39 pm

"Except that quantum physics very probably is real... all its predictions do happen."

I dont think so. It dont have an idea about electron, it can not predict its properties, also the neutrino and may the proton. It even dont understand magnetism and the electric field. Nor predict phenomenon about electricity in matter and electromagnetism. Completely clueless about gravity. Without having these knowledges, it isnt better then physics of 19.century.

The reality is there is no technological advancement in last 50 years based on theoretical physics.

Why there is no single piece of (primitive) hardware based on quantum computing or quantum principles?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:19 pm

Couldn't you communicate long distances instantaneously with gravity? Or perhaps the theoretical graviton? Because isn't gravity's force felt instantaneously?

I guess the hard part would be trying to be precise enough to be intelligible over those same long distances.

edited: for clarification

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:17 pm

Jeff: Well I think the problem would be, how do you modify gravity?

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:51 pm

Sudanamaru wrote:I dont think so. It dont have an idea about electron, it can not predict its properties, also the neutrino and may the proton.

I don't know exactly what you mean here. Quantum theory can and does extend into the domain of electrons and how they behave, and can predict their behaviour accurately...

It even dont understand magnetism and the electric field. Nor predict phenomenon about electricity in matter and electromagnetism. Completely clueless about gravity. Without having these knowledges, it isnt better then physics of 19.century.

That's because our understanding hasn't advanced since then either. No-one DOES understand magnetism and the electric field, they just have equations and models to describe their effects.

Likewise gravity.

The reality is there is no technological advancement in last 50 years based on theoretical physics.

Why there is no single piece of (primitive) hardware based on quantum computing or quantum principles?

Um, because primitive hardware is generally pretty cheap, and anything relying on quantum principles of the sort you seem to be thinking of (like quantum computers) is decidedly NOT cheap.

But computers already DO rely on quantum principles; transistors wouldn't even work if electrons weren't ordered into energy shells.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:59 pm

Nitrofox125 wrote:Jeff: Well I think the problem would be, how do you modify gravity?

By moving massive amounts of mass distant distances. Or maybe creating mass and destroying it.