runswithcoyotes t1_isrt18g wrote on October 18, 2022 at 6:05 AM

Reply to comment by matpompili in Experimental demonstration of entanglement delivery using a quantum network stack by matpompili

Why not? Any change is itself a message.

Edit: to whoever downvoted me, you obviously don’t understand signaling. Any change in states, is at the very least a binary message. Couple that with timing, and multiple bits, and you’ve got yourself a full-fledged messaging platform. Egg heads like OP here aren’t able to explain why this wont work. I’m happy to listen to an explanation, if one could just be provided.

Kitosaki t1_istgqqa wrote on October 18, 2022 at 4:07 PM

I’m confused too

LaPommeDeTerre t1_it1nkp7 wrote on October 20, 2022 at 8:18 AM

I think this explains why: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/?sh=cc285313a1eb

runswithcoyotes t1_it4yed7 wrote on October 20, 2022 at 11:37 PM

Ah, thanks! So I this explains why you can’t send specific values:

If you force one side to change, it breaks the entanglement. UNLESS you modify the state in a way that you can compare the changes that led to the state later. I don’t really understand why that is, and will need to dig into the nested links to find out.

> Alice and Bob end up with measurements that are perfectly correlated, no information passes between them. They can only see the correlation when they get back together and compare lists, and they have to do that at or below the speed of light.

But! My question wasn’t actually about specific states, it was about changes in states. Which.. to me still seems possible.