For instance, if I wanted to do a distributed computation with a server on the other side of the world, it would be limited by the speed of light. From where I am to Australia is about 48 ms. So if I want to communicate there and receive a reply, that's about 1/10 of a second right there. I can only do that 10 times a second then. Not so good.
Not to mention the Mars mission has to wait anywhere from 8-19 minutes to get data between earth and the rover.
We could certainly use > c if it was possible.
Tell your boss you found a company with a scheme that can transmit bits over a quantum optical link, but only with a fidelity of 50%. Then get a friend to found that company and charge your boss' company $5 million for the device.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars#Communicat...
No, no, no, no, no. No. No. No. Quantum entanglement can not be used to communicate in that manner, on its own. This is well-established, and given the how mathematical the establishment is, it's not going to change anytime soon.
No. No. No. Stop that. No.
"As of our current understanding of quantum mechanics, though, it is impossible to send data using quantum entanglement, preserving the theory of relativity. A lot of work is being done in this area, though, and some physicists believe that faster-than-light communication might be possible with some clever manipulation of entangled particles."
Shame it's so vague about those some physicists!
The simplest defeasible claim in 2013, is still: "we don't know".
Consider, 'How does the sun come up every day?'
Answer A: God makes it happen.
Answer B: The earth is a spinning geoid that rotates eastwards, once about it's axis, roughly every 24 hours. However most of the effect is not related to the orbits of either the sun or earth, with respect to each other. The sun "rises" is more an observational effect of a stationary observer on the surface of the earth, having their field of view rotated.
(For the record, answer B can be improved of course, though that's not the point here)
"Simplicity" does not mean a catchall (Answer A). It also does not necessarily mean linguistic brevity either. There is debate around what it means and it's beyond the scope of my comment[1]. This is the problem with string theory, that also tends to be popular among the MWI crowd too. It's overly broad and the math looks pretty, but those are not sufficient conditions for a good scientific theory. (Oblig xkcd [1])
MWI, like string theory, makes little if any falsifiable and testable claims.
How??
How is it possible to observe whether or not an entangled particle has had its state resolved by the other particle being observed?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept
It isn't. All they can detect immediately (i.e., when each photon is detected) is the measured polarization of each individual photon. They can't know the correlation between the two, which is what tests the entanglement, until the results from both measurements are brought together, which happens slower than light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot
Amaze your friends! Shoot light through steel ball bearings with a laser pointer.
In this paper they invoke the assumption of "fair sampling". i.e. They assume what they do detect is representative. Ergo, they have not closed the detection loophole in this experiment. Fair sampling is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make and is very commonly used, so this should not be interpreted as invalidating their results. It just leaves room for improvement in the future, since single photon detectors with sufficient efficiency to close the detection loophole do now exist (They are very bleeding edge).
Note that the paper is correct and does not make the claim that "all loopholes" have been closed. The extremetech article got it wrong.
Not completely, but if I'm reading the paper correctly, they claim a detection rate of 91%, which is pretty high. Previous experiments had much lower detection rates. So while it may not completely close the loophole, it does make the detection loophole argument ("the photons you detected weren't a representative sample") much more "paranoid", to use your word.
I am aware of Bells inequality, but how do they show that for this specific experiment there were no hidden variables in play?
you need proof for extra-dimensional existence just take all those experiments that could be solved by it .. double split... spooky action .... and many more.. (even quantum computers inner working)
