3 ms·
But if each side of the pair can only have a certain number of states, is it not possible to perturb one of them until it gets into a state such that you know b
by TechBro8615 3y ago
But if each side of the pair can only have a certain number of states, is it not possible to perturb one of them until it gets into a state such that you know based on entanglement that the other must be in its corollary state?
- johncolanduoni 3y agoGiven only an entangled qubit, the only thing you can do that will be “synchronized” with the other party is perform a measurement. Each measurement performed by either party will produce either a 0 or 1 without any “input” from the measurer or the other party. Any perturbation of the state that preserves the entanglement can only rotate it (which just alters what state your side considers 0 and 1).
- TechBro8615 3y agoThanks. While you were writing your comment I found this article [0] that does a decent job of explaining why my hypothetical system isn't possible. It first lays out the exact system I had in mind and then unfortunately debunks it :( I don't fully understand the subtleties, but the root problem seems to be that by measuring the state, you're perturbing the system and putting it into a new state, such that your measurement becomes irrelevant, as if you're always one step behind the message and can never catch up. > The only way that this problem could be circumvented is if there existed some way of making a quantum measurement that actually forced a particular outcome. (Note: this is not something permitted within the presently-known laws of physics.) [0] https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-entanglement-faster-than-light/ https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-entanglement...