|
|
|
|
|
by hackuser
4459 days ago
|
|
>When you measure particle A, something happens to particle B. Couldn't that be the signal? For example, one person could tell the other: "When B resolves, press the button!" It wouldn't matter if B resolved to red or blue. Is it that we cannot detect whether B is in a superposition state without observing it and therefore resolving its state to one 'position' or the other? (I hope I'm not the only one on HN with an incomplete understanding of current quantum theory.) |
|
You're Alice, and you want to send Bob the message "1001010". Let's start with the first "1". You measure A and see "red", and thus alter the probabilities of B to "90/10" ... and you think to yourself: Awesome, I just sent a "90/10" probability to Bob, and that means "1". If I had gotten "blue", Bob would be receiving a "50/50" probability.
Now, you're Bob at Alpha Centauri, and a particle arrives. Then what? No matter if you get "red" or "blue", you'll never know if it happened as 50/50 (the inherent randomness of any quantum measurement), or because of the "90/10" probability. So when you have to write down was it a "1" or a "0" ... you can't know.
At that specific moment, in your lab, when particle B arrives .... the result doesn't tell you anything.
Once you meet again, or send an email (you can compare your stats and find out that, statistically A affected B ... but if you need email (classical communication) to find out, then it's definitely not faster than light)
There are more subtleties about the uncertainty principle, orthogonal basis, etc ... but you would need a more formal language to express it.