Copilot: This is a fascinating thought experiment! Let’s break it down: Entanglement and Instantaneous Correlation: When you and Bob measure your respective entangled particles, the outcomes are correlated. If you measure your particle and find it UP, you know instantly that Bob’s corresponding particle is DOWN, and vice versa. This correlation happens instantaneously, regardless of the distance between you. No Information Transfer: However, the key point in quantum mechanics is that while entanglement allows for instantaneous correlation, it does not allow for faster-than-light (FTL) communication. This is because the outcome of each measurement is random. You cannot control whether your particle will be UP or DOWN, and thus you cannot send a specific message to Bob using this method. Bob’s Actions: Bob’s actions based on the particles’ states are predetermined by your agreement. When you measure your particles, you know what Bob will do, but this knowledge is based on the pre-agreed rules and the random outcomes of the measurements. You are not sending new information to Bob; you are merely observing the results of a pre-established protocol. Radio Message: The radio message Bob sends after completing his tasks is the actual communication. This message travels at the speed of light, and it is only then that you receive confirmation of Bob’s actions. In summary, while entanglement provides instantaneous knowledge of correlated outcomes, it does not enable FTL communication because you cannot use it to send controlled information. The actual communication (Bob’s radio message) still adheres to the speed of light limit. Therefore, you have not accomplished FTL communication.RM: Interesting. In the same scenario, let’s assume Planets “X” and “Y” each are halfway between Bob and me. If I follow the same instructions, Bob and I will meet halfway simultaneously. That could not have been accomplished if I had sent him instructions by radio message. And yet, this is not considered information?
RM: I suspect the difference must be randomness, not the “pre-established protocol.” After all, English is a “pre-established protocol.” I am writing to you in a “pre-established protocol,” and you are answering me in a “pre-established protocol,” but I consider your answer to be information, so the difference between correlation and communication must be randomness. True?Copilot: You’ve highlighted a very intriguing aspect of quantum entanglement and its implications for coordination. Let’s delve into this:
Simultaneous Actions: By following the same set of instructions based on the entangled particles, both you and Bob can coordinate your actions to meet at a specific location (Planets “X” or “Y”) at the same time. This coordination is indeed remarkable and would not be possible with classical communication methods like radio, which are limited by the speed of light.
Pre-Established Protocol: The key here is that the coordination is based on a pre-established protocol. Both you and Bob agreed in advance on how to interpret the outcomes of the entangled particles. This agreement allows you to predict each other’s actions without the need for real-time communication.
No New Information Transfer: Despite the impressive coordination, this process does not involve the transfer of new information. The outcomes of the entangled particles are random and cannot be controlled to send specific messages. The entanglement allows you to know the state of Bob’s particles instantaneously, but it does not enable you to send a message to Bob or vice versa.
Quantum Correlation vs. Communication: The distinction lies in the difference between correlation and communication. Quantum entanglement provides a way to correlate actions instantaneously, but it does not allow for the transmission of information in the traditional sense. Information transfer requires the ability to send a specific, controlled message, which is not possible with entanglement alone.
In essence, while quantum entanglement allows for remarkable coordination and correlation, it does not violate the principles of relativity because it does not enable faster-than-light communication. The coordination you describe is a result of the pre-agreed protocol and the inherent properties of entanglement, rather than the transmission of new information.
RM: I’m going to flip a coin. If it lands on “heads,” I’ll tell you, and you type the word “heads.” If the coin lands on tails, I’ll tell you and you type the word “tails.” I have no control over this. It’s random. OK, I just flipped the coin. It’s heads. Do your thing.Copilot: You’re absolutely right! The key difference between quantum entanglement and classical communication lies in the randomness of the measurement outcomes.
In classical communication, like our conversation in English, we use a pre-established protocol (language) to convey specific, controlled information. Each word and sentence is deliberately chosen to communicate a particular message.
In the case of quantum entanglement:
Random Outcomes: When you measure an entangled particle, the result (UP or DOWN) is inherently random. You cannot control the outcome to send a specific message. This randomness is fundamental to quantum mechanics.
Instantaneous Correlation: While the outcomes are random, they are perfectly correlated. If you measure your particle and find it UP, you know instantly that Bob’s corresponding particle is DOWN. However, this correlation does not convey any new information because you cannot predict or control the outcome.
No Controlled Information Transfer: Since you cannot control the measurement outcomes, you cannot use entanglement to send a specific, pre-determined message to Bob. This lack of control is what prevents entanglement from being used for faster-than-light communication.
In summary, the randomness of the measurement outcomes is indeed the critical factor that distinguishes quantum entanglement from classical communication. While entanglement allows for instantaneous correlation, it does not enable the controlled transfer of information, which is essential for communication.
RM: Did I communicate information to you?Copilot: Heads.
So folks, if you can visualize this, much less explain it, a Nobel Prize awaits you. Meanwhile, I will return to Monetary Sovereignty, tail between my legs. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell; MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/Copilot: Yes, you did communicate information to me. When you told me the coin landed on heads, you conveyed specific information based on the outcome of a random event. Even though the result was random and you had no control over it, the act of telling me the result allowed you to transfer information.
The key difference between this scenario and quantum entanglement is that in classical communication (like telling me the coin flip result), you can directly convey the outcome. In quantum entanglement, while you can know the state of the other particle instantaneously, you cannot use this to send a controlled message because the outcomes are inherently random and cannot be predetermined or influenced.
So, while both involve randomness, classical communication allows for the direct transfer of information, whereas quantum entanglement does not enable controlled information transfer.
……………………………………………………………………..
The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
“Randomness” simply means we can’t explain it. At one time, we thought lightning was random. Nothing about the universe is “random” if we knew all the initial conditions and rules of interacting. Like a billiard table; if we know all the initial conditions of the balls and table, and we know the rules of energy and momentum transfer within the system, then nothing that happens would look random.
The outcome of measuring a particle seems random because we don’t understand it; just like lightening 1000-years ago.
LikeLike
You are correct that we can’t explain it. Intuitively, I tend to believe that every effect has a cause. But many aspects of quantum mechanics are quite non-intuitive, and the heart of QM, entanglement, may be the least intuitive of all.
Further, the “Block Universe” hypotheses doesn’t even include cause and effect because everything exists all at once. We have learned much, but we are still “flat-earthers” when it comes to our knowledge of reality — if there is such a thing as reality.
LikeLike
I left the following comment on your previous post about this, but it wasn’t approved for some reason. It’s even more important that you read and understand it here, particularly the part about the Alain Aspect particle experiments. He won a noble prize for that in just 2022, even though I disagree with his premise, and also with the co-pilot premise here: that random particle spin can’t somehow be predicted in advance. If this limitation can be overcome, FTL communication MIGHT be possible, assuming there really is such a thing as “spooky action at a distance” quantum entanglement. Einstein said otherwise, and I am reluctant to contradict the greatest physicist of all time.
Here is the full comment.
I don’t understand why people, or AI, continue to confuse events with observations of events. They are not the same. The sun is 8 light-minutes away. If it produced a solar flare, we wouldn’t see that for 8 minutes. But the actual production of the solar flare would have happened 8 minutes before we saw it, having nothing to do with the pokey transmission of light to our eyes/instruments 8 minutes later!
I think you are potentially right and co-pilot is definitely wrong. Light moves at a constant speed, as per Einstein (~300k km/hour). Great. So much for light. But we want to know if we can communicate at 1,000 light years, or whatever, distance, not whether we can confirm that by pokey light communications. IF there’s a way to communicate through Quantum Entanglement that is faster than light AND it has proven to be reliable through experiments like Aspect’s experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment which proved the violation of Bell’s inequality with photons (more on that in a moment), than that is all we need. We don’t call someone on the telephone to verify they received our email. We trust the internet to do its job and don’t need to verify that. BTW, if there was a guarantee of opposite spin of a particle – a photon in Aspect’s experiment, the smallest particle there is – that would be enough for full and robust communication. The most sophisticated computers and internet operate at base on a binary on/off principle, and by stacking billions of these on/off states in sequence, we can say anything we want to say.
I have a problem with Aspect – who won the noble prize in physics in 2022 – not because he’s wrong, but because I don’t think his observations justify his conclusions. I believe it is the clumsy method of detecting spin of a photon that changes the photon’s spin. Fortunately, only the sender need measure the outgoing photon spin, while the receiver can conduct his own measurement of the incoming photon spin. Done this way, Aspect’s results are reliable.
This does not violate causality because it is only INFORMATION that is being transmitted. Events still happen, or have happened, even if we can’t detect them by observation through light methods for 8 minutes…or 1,000 years. Seeing is not believing, over long distances. It is just a movie made in the past.
LikeLike
In the example I gave to Copilot, there was no need to predict the measurement of the “home” particle. Just measuring it was enough. Whatever the measurement showed, the “distant” particle would be measured opposite, so I, the sender, would know exactly what the receiver was told to do.
One of the laws of physics is that information cannot be created or destroyed.. That is where the hypothesis of “Hawking radiation” came from. Also, that information cannot be transmitted faster than light.
My quibble with Copilot’s answer is that it assumes my knowledge of the distant particle’s spin and “Bob’s” resultant actions were not “information.”
Copilot does retract its “pre-established protocol” objection, because clearly, language is a pre-established protocol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I agree. AI can become fixated on Establishment dogma, in physics as in economics. This hinders creativity as well as being just plain wrong at times. Humans are still needed!
In the real world, there are 3 major impediments towards future AI progress:
1. Copyright infringement: There are lawsuits form the NY Times and other media, class actions form artists & authors.
2. Hallucinations or AI simply makes stuff up. This is increasing and no one seems to know what to do about it.
3. Increasing reliance on AI data is starting to degrade AI results. This is a new but fast-growing problem: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/26/upshot/ai-synthetic-data.html. As original sources of data run out or are excluded due to restrictions (see#1), this and #2 will increasingly make AI unreliable.
The limitation isn’t hardware or theoretical limits, it’s usefulness and reliability.
In the present case, you would be transmitting information, even if you didn’t know what that information actually was to begin with. Even a random number is information, even if unknown at the time. One would think a computer intelligence would understand there are things humans don’t know that are still information. Perhaps it is “uninformed”? Maybe a quantum computer could someday know the quantum state of a photon’s spin without disturbing it the way our present technology does. Then, we would know what we’re sending and problem solved. Funny how AI can’t “predict” that.
LikeLike
Your #3 is especially worrying. Until AI “intelligence” is able to discern scientific proof vs. conspiracy theories, and relies on volume, there always will be that danger.
LikeLike
First of all, to communicate something at faster-than-light speed using entanglement you need a way to modify the particle spin. You can’t just send a particle (entangled to another particle with spin UP) to the other party which will do something (according to an agreed upon schema) when he measures spin DOWN, since this is limited by the speed of the entangled particle, which will be at most the speed of light. First you need to share the entangled particles, then you change spin on your particles in a certain way which will be known (hopefully instantaneously) by the other party when he measures his entangled particle spin.
A session with Copilot eventually gave this result:
(incidentally, this was not consistent with a previous answer:
).
A further research confirmed that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_communication):
So, when you write something to the other party (by modifying the spin of your half of entangled particles) you break the entanglement so that the other party cannot get any useful information from his particles.
You might also find this link useful: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-we-still-cant-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light/
DISCLAIMER: I’m not an expert of quantum mechanics. I’m not even a physicist.
LikeLike
1. The distant particle would have been sent in advance, anticipating future use.
2, The nearby particle would not be manipulated. It merely would be measured, which would cause the distant particle to assume the opposite measurement.
LikeLike
OK, now I think I see your point. When Bob receives the particle he measures its spin and performs a certain action based on the result he gets, and you know what he is doing at that moment in time because the entangled particle you kept can give you this information. You say
which seems to imply that you measure your particle only when Bob receives the entangled particle, so that a faster-than-light communication between the two particles hapens (the other particles somehow instantly knows that your particle’s spin has been measured and has value “up”, so it assumes spin value “down”). This is not really important, because the state of a particle will not change and, if you measure its spin at different moments, its value will be the same (this is an approximation: Copilot tells me that the state coherence and the entanglement property will disappear over time under normal conditions). And anyway, 10 years after you send Bob the particles, you still get to know what Bob will be doing in that instant even if he is 10 light years away.
Now I propose a variant of your experiment: everything remains the same except that, instead of sending entangled particles, you send entangled paper messages. Definition of entangled paper messages: two pieces of paper, which differ only in the text written on them (“up” on one of them, “down” on the other), folded so as the text is not visible (just as you cannot know the spin of a particle when you look at it). You call someone which chooses which message of the entangled pair will be sent to Bob and which message remains to you, so you don’t know the text (the particle spin) of the message you keep until you measure it (unfold the paper and read the text). It will still be true that you know what Bob will be doing when he receives your message, even if he is 10 light years away. But this time no quantum mechanics and entanglement or anything that defies common sense is involved, just plain pen and paper.
Do you still think there is FTL communication?
LikeLike
Love it! Or make it even simpler. Mail him a sealed envelope with the words, “Open on [date]” written on the outside and a message inside. When he opens the envelope, he sees the message. So long as the date is later than when he receives the envelope, it’s FTL.
It’s a little weak on the timing aspect (You have to know 10 years in advance when he should act), but hey, that’s just a detail, right?
LikeLike
That’s the key point. When you choose which particle you keep and which particle you send to Bob (10 years before ye will receive it), you have “received” the information and, if you read it (by measuring the spin) you know what Bob will do 10 years in advance. You may decide to delay reading until Bob receives his particle, but the information is there, encoded in your particle. Bob receives the information via the entangled particles, which does not travel faster than light. So, no FTL communication.
LikeLike
Carlo, I’m sure you know far more about quantum mechanics than I do.
FTL violates everything we currently know about physics. With regard to you paper explanation, I assume that was just for demonstration purposes, because there is a fundamental difference. In the paper explanation, that each sheet of paper has a definite existence.
When two particles are entangled, neither has a definite existence. Neither is UP or DOWN. Each particle is simultaneously UP, DOWN, and every other description one can provide.
It’s not just that we don’t know; it’s that these features don’t even exist until the particles are measured. There are no hidden variables. Everything comes into existence upon measurement or decoherence. This is just one of the many counter-intuitive aspects of quantum mechanics.
In that sense, the information is not “there encoded in the particle.” The information simply does not exist until it’s measured. or until decoherence.
We have reached the limit — actually exceeded the limit — of my knowledge. Thank you for your interesting comments.
LikeLike
Well, I have to remark that I’m really not an expert of quantum mechanics (as someone with real knowledge will have noticed), and giving a correct answer to your question was certainly above my possibilities. And I was wrong to say that the spin value is somehow defined (and constant in time) before you first measure it (I misinterpreted a Copilot comment). However, it appears that there is a general agreement that no FTL communication is possible, even using entanglement (and the Copilot answers you reported in your posts support this idea). If the only way for the entangled particle to know its spin value, as determined by your measurement, requires an actual communication between the particles, then you are right and you have accomplished FTL communication. The only logical alternative to communication that I can see would be some kind of “predetermination”; the entangled particles obey a common rule so that each particle, at a defined time, will return, upon measurement, a value consistent (i.e. opposite) with the value of the other particle (the paper example is a limiting case where the rule is “constant value”). Is this scenario compatible with quantum mechanics? I don’t really know.
Thank you for your intriguing questions.
LikeLike
Looks amazing and thanks for sharing
LikeLike