You take a light particle (in this case) and then take the quantum information that identifies that particular particle of light--call it a vibration--and place another particle of light near it. You mix them until both particles are resonating exactly the same--which makes them into identical particles and then you take one of those particles across the room and make changes in the original.  The particles are what scientests call "entangled"--each having the same information.

This is the sort of experiment that's been done successfully before.

Now they take a beam of light and shine it across the room to a fiber optic conduit or some sort of light storage medium and then turn off (destroy) the source of the light.  On the other side of the room, the original light particles still exist  and behave exactly like the original even though the original was destroyed.

They need this for quantum computers.  Its like RAM memory sort of.  Information is written, used and then overwritten for new information--but while still stored on the computer.

Sort of like your RAM and CPU do all sorts of processes which create a result and then that result can be saved to your hard drive.

They need light particles for quantum computing because quantum particles (qbits, etc.) are easily disturbed and interfered with and hard to see and read results from.  A wire has impedance and molecular and atomic irregularities that would basically make quantum information too interfered with to be useful.

By being able to pass beams of light, no wires needed and by being able to turn them on and off while still saving them to a form of memory means you have the building blocks for quantum computers.

A lot more to it but this is a really dumbed down analogy.  I've been reading on it for years and it still is near incomprehensible to me.  As a comfort, Einstein had problems getting it too when it was first explained to him.  That's where his, "God doesn't play dice with the universe!" quote came from.

This experiment used in part what Einstein defined as "spooky action at a distance".

Regarding the Heisenberg principle--it still stands.  One day we might be able to get around it but it can't be violated.  The same as nothing can acelerate to the speed of light but there are ways to go faster than it. Ukrainian scientists have actually taken a photo of the "electron cloud" around a carbon atom and it is just that--a cloud.  All the places an electron could possibly be exist simultaneously and instead of seeing "an electron" you see a fuzzy cloud of their possible positions.  It's enough to make you mad.

Here's Wikipedia's summary of the "double slit light experiment"...

In between times (from the light source across the distance to the double slot blind) it (the light particle) is completely out of sensible interaction with the things of our universe, out of sensible interaction with the macro world. What is going on in the apparatus is something that is not known.

It is perhaps not so astounding that one knows nothing about what a light particle is doing between the time it is emitted from the sun and the time it triggers a reaction in one's body, but the remarkable consequence discovered by this experiment is that anything that one does to try to locate a photon between the emitter and the detection screen will change the results of the experiment in a way that everyday experience would not lead one to expect.

If, for instance, any device is used in any way that can determine whether a particle has passed through one slit or the other, the interference pattern formerly produced will then disappear.

In layman's terms: If you watch the experiment and try to observe the light between the source and the target, it makes the light behave differently when it reaches the target.  Go figure.

Lol....*slap.

Thread necro aside , that won't work. Sinperium is mostly right, except for one important thing. Messing with the original particle does not directly change the other entangled particle. It actually breaks the entanglement. Likewise, you can't use quantum teleportation to communicate at the speed of light. For one thing, you need to get the 2nd entangled particle to Pluto (or wherever) in the first place. Once you do get it there, because of how quantum mechanics works, the 2nd particle can either be a negative or positive image of the 1st. You have no way of knowing whether it is positive or negative without finding out what the 1st particle looked like.

I probably did a poor job of explaining that, so I suggest you read this: http://io9.com/5584356/can-i-build-an-ansible-to-communicate-across-the-cosmos

Well, yes, that's what I tried to get into with the part about not being able to use quantum teleportation to communicate at the speed of light. Really, the two problems are interrelated, and that link I gave does a much better job of explaining it (and from a real physicist! ).

Well, yes, there are theories, in the sense that someone came up with an idea . Most serious physicists, however, regard them as little more than interesting thought experiments at best. Most of them require rewriting the laws of physics, when the current ones we have pass every test we throw at them, and are therefore much, much more likely to be correct.

I suggest that you do. It's very interesting. He does a semi-annual column where he answers physics questions. It's really cool.

There is a limit to what you can do but you can "transmit" changes across unlimited (theoretically) distance.  Doing so requires the destruction of the original entangled particle. Yes, you would have to get the particle out there in the first place.

There are some promising theories on using quantum entanglement for communication but recent research suggests it may be limited to the speed of light and it's possible that distance can corrupt the entangled information--either by degradation or interference.

I personally think it's more than a thought experiment--I really think these will be cornerstones of future tech.

Einstein was  challenged by quantum theories and his initial response was to think the theories were incomplete and would be proven incorrect--i.e., "God doesn't throw dice".

Look back historically at all the "impossible" things that are now being done: invisibility, computers, space travel, etc., etc.  Experts of their day wrote volumes in each case about how these things just could never be practical.

To quote the bible:

The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.  Genesis 11:6

This has pretty much proven true throughout human history--except for the alchemy  stuff.

That was a good summation up there SithLord.  Curse yoooou! (I should have read it first...oops)

Do some reading on "entangling already entangled particles with other entangled particles"--you start seeing some potential.

Regrettably, I don't remember the exact source or substance, but a few months back I read about a breakthrough (possibly) theory on "what" exactly magnetism might be.  It explained a lot of the conundrums.  There have been a slew of breakthroughs regarding magnetic materials and the like lately.

I draw the line at pure mathematics.  Tools of satan! Besides, my brain is too sharply honed in esoteric pseudoscientific genius to step down to mundane realities.

 What's really neat about science fiction is it generally dispenses with the proven "how" and jumps straight to "what".  Fascinating how routinely scifi has put the finger on future tech far before it was ever even considered to be practical or possible.

And since a mind is a terrible thing to waste and you like math (I think I threw up a little there) I wanted to make sure you knew that M.I.T. has opened up most of their curriculum as OpenCourseWare...which means you can take the classes online fre of charge (just no credits given and no help provided).

I think that's very cool though thinking about it makes my brain hurt.

On a purely narcissistic note, when I was sixteen, I worked out a pen-and-paper science fiction empire game and part of it was developing a rationale for jumping between stars.  I didn't know until a couple of weeks ago that I duplicated (without math but rather intuitively) the very device used by Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling for their CoDominium series stories.

To get theirs worked out, they asked a rocket scientist at JPL to develop a rational star drive for them.  He came up with the "Alderson Drive" and my own invention was based on the same basic ideas--relative stellar luminosities and radii determined "jump points".  I remember hating using luminosity as it seemed so unrelated to warping space but I just kept feeling it was 'the way to go".

Man, I am a pseudogenius.

 

 

 

You could build accelerator rings at carefully placed spots but the planets used to slingshot provide way more energy than a manmade ring would--and a lot cheaper too.

On the other hand, if you built a 15-20 mile long maglev track and angled it up the side of a high mountain at it's end, you could boost payloads into orbit every few minutes with ease.

My thought on all the "stimulus" money that was spent in 2008 is that it would have been better put into something like this and then take industry to space.  Would have provided a new industry and jobs easily into the next century.

Nasa proposed years back a scheme that would allow solar collectors on the moon to beam energy back to earth orbit and then down to earth from orbital collectors.  Now we can mass produce much more efficient or economical collectors cheaply and we could fill orbital space with them.

Instead, we'll stay down here and just play until the next planet killer lands on us.

Here's the link to  the 2000 free M.I.T. courses online which include physics courses: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

You would need a mostly linear set of rings right out of the final turn out of your slingshot maneuver. Added acceleration then would depend on the strength of the magnets (essentially, how much power they had) and how many there were. The big issue is getting them out there and they would have to be at La Grange/Trojan points to keep from having tp adjust their positions. So the Trojan point would have to be be on the ecliptic and aligned on a linear ballistic path towards your target point. Very expensive with little practical use--unless you could come up with super high energy magnets the size of mountains I'd guess. My pen-and-paper game had an alternative to this. I'll post it when I'm not on an iPad.

i dont think your getting the idea that both the ring and the ship are moving at the same speed in opposite directions so that they meet back up every half-orbit. But its okay... I can't build it and it wouldn't work very well.

Anyone want to talk about teleporting? eh?

Magnetism so far as I can tell is just an expression of the movement of electrons...  Of course, my high school physics teacher didn't like dealing with anything subatomic, so he skimmed the sections more than I'd have liked...

If you go by the theory that all mass is simply light that has locked itself into effectively chasing its tail, then so far as I can tell, that's the field given off by the compression of the electric field coming straight out of the photon as it chases itself (or vice versa, I don't really know).  Electromagnetism is never something I've completely understood...

 

As for FTL, I'm assuming its possible in some bizarre way, so FTL communication is probably possible somehow (so long as its on the nano scale).  As for actual trasportation, that's another thing entirely...  The book I'm writing (which is science fiction) depends on the idea of multiple universes and the ultimate ability for humanity to create smaller ones which can travel exterior to the primary universe.  Think bubbles in a bathtub.  If you pinch one bubble off, it can join another bubble or reattach to the first one.  According to an extension of string theory, if you were to focus enough energy into a small enough area, you would rip space-time.  What happens after that is anyone's guess.  My book says FTL    Now of course, this leads to all sorts of weapons (if you can rip space-time, you can start doing all sorts of fun things to your enemies).  Alas, this isn't a speculative physics thread, so I'll stop now.  The point is, in the book, I mention how since the present day, there have been three major physics overhauls (discounting the theory of quantum gravity which I have pegged at happening sixty years from now).  The first allows for bussard scramjets (2500's), the second allows for more or less a warp drive (3000's), and the third allows for the FTL I just mentioned (3300's).

 

Physics overhauls aren't that unlikely if you think about it.  As instruments become more and more precise, it may happen that data points don't line up.  For that reason, I see no reason why FTL should ultimately be ruled out.

 

 

To Sinperium's comment regarding the stimulus money...  I actually did my term paper on that, and after a couple months of research, I can definitely say some sort of linear accelerator would have worked better for the country in the long run.

 

Sorry about jumping around...  I love threads like this because of their topic, but hate them because of their continuity, so I tried to stay mostly on topic...

I have returned to claim my right over this very thread!

I am sorry for not responding to your answer, as i visit the boards only sporadically recently...and then it got lost under lots of other threads, until i rediscovered it now. Anyway thanks for your response, it cleared a few things to me. Now i need to read the rest of the thread, seems quite interesting reading.

BTW recently i read, but cant get the link right now, there has been another breakthrough made in regard to quantum computer, i reckon it had to do something with discovery of the means of storage  of entangled particles without breaking them...

 

EDIT:

so i think i found it, it was probably this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720142123.htm

its probably not quite the same what i described, but it does not matter now

 

Like I said, I've never really understood electromagnetism.  

 

I was referring to one specific case where they think you wouldn't just create a black hole, but yes, under normal circumstances, you would create a black hole.  Which brings me to a question...

What actually happens with spinning or electrically charged black holes?  Whenever I've read articles describing black holes, the physicists always conveniently say, "we'll talk about non-spinning, uncharged black holes because they are simpler."  What actually happens when they are those things?  I heard once that if spinning, the singularity will actually turn into a circle.  Whether they meant a ring or a two-dimensional object, I wasn't sure, but..  I've just always wondered.  I've also wondered how a black hole can even be magnetic because some show on the discovery channel (I think it was Through the Wormhole) actually said they even eat magnetic fields...