this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
173 points (95.3% liked)

science

17827 readers
57 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] C126@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (15 children)

I thought the whole point of entangled communication is that you didn’t need to “send” anything. It automatically flips the entangled bit on the other end, all that “spooky action at a distance” bidness. Why do the need to “send” entangled photons?

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

You need to prep by sending the entangled particles (photons in this case). The spooky action is when you act on 1, you also act on the other. The useful bit is the uniqueness of the link. It cannot be intercepted without it being obvious and detectable.

Think of it like voodoo dolls. It works at a distance, but you need to make the voodoo doll using a bit of the target, then send/take it elsewhere to stab.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'm pretty ignorant of physics, but isn't it only certain kinds of ways of acting on the first particle that "affect" the other, namely actions that measure a property of one particle that is correlated with the same property's value on the other? At first you don't know the value of either but you know they're correlated; but then when you measure and collapse the wave function on one and discovered a value for the property, you have automatically collapsed the wave function on the other too, yielding a predictably correlated value. If it were just any kind of action that affects the other particle, you'd be able to use it to sent information instantaneously, which you can't do. So it's not quite like how people imagine voodoo dolls: do something to the doll (make a change to it) and the person feels the effect. But perhaps someone who studies this stuff can help clarify.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's fairly close. The only proviso is there are some ways to affect the results. You can't send actual information along the link, but you can prove they were in communication. That proof requires information from the sending end however. It's only provable once that information is sent. Basically they communicate faster than light, but can't send information faster than light. Entanglement is weird.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you. That is helpful and clear.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)