Selena Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Hello all! For those of you whom haven't run into me, I'm writing a young reader's Sci-Fi book and need some help. Part of the story involves advanced forms of communications (mainly because it is essential for the plot that radio be completely out dated). Thusly, I need to get a good understanding of the next 'wave' ( ) of communications, e.g. quantum. So, can anyone explain to me what the theory behind it is, how it's expected to work, and its practical applications? Thanks for the help, you guys are life savers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locrian Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 There are several threads concerning this issue in the first page of this forum. The consensus is that there is no communicating faster than light, and radio is light. I think you may have to take some liberties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 You might want to see my thread on this issue... so far no one has managed to tell me what the problem is. Of course, this method still requires you wait for photons travelling c to get from a midpoint to your communication endpoints... and it seems to be theoretically impossible because it could lead to causality violations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 The fastest way to communicate would be at the speed of light, so generally radio waves, micro-waves (used partly in mobile phones) and light (fiber optics) is used to transfer data. You could communicate using quantum teleportation, but that still only works at the speed of light and is quite a bit more complex and it isn't really fully developed as a means of communications yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selena Posted September 12, 2005 Author Share Posted September 12, 2005 I was under the impression that through quantum communications (forgive me, I don't know any of the correct terms here) you could have instant communications no matter the distance. I believe this was related to qubits and entanglement, but I really don't remember the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Qubits would refer to quantum bits, so its like a bit in conventional computers but its the quantum version, quantum teleportation is used in quantum computers and uses entanglement to work, however like I said, nothing goes faster than c (where c = the speed of light in a vacum). Scientists believe nothing will ever travel faster than c and to this day it has been true, there's 0 evidence to suggest anything will change with regards to the "ultimate speed limit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selena Posted September 12, 2005 Author Share Posted September 12, 2005 Okay, I totally get that... I'll look for the information that led me down this path so I can ask better, more specific questions... Thanks for helping! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 You won't find anything which is truley faster than c Cerenkov radiation, anomalous dispersion, quantum teleportation, all seem to be some form of faster than light, but none of them transmit data faster than c so it doesn't break the fundemental laws of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I was under the impression that through quantum communications (forgive me, I don't know any of the correct terms here) you could have instant communications no matter the distance. I believe this was related to qubits and entanglement, but I really don't remember the details. That entanglement allows instantaneous communication is a common misconception. One problem is that it's a very advanced topic, and a lot is lost when boiling the concept down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selena Posted September 12, 2005 Author Share Posted September 12, 2005 That entanglement allows instantaneous communication is a common misconception. One problem is that it's a very advanced topic, and a lot is lost when boiling the concept down. Well that's going to be my main problem. It has to be boiled down for me to understand it (I can grasp science concepts fairly quickly, but I'm no where near the level of understanding advanced quantum mechanics!) and then I need to boil it down even farther for a 7th grade audience... I can always make something up (you can't predict invention) but I'd much rather use science fact and precedents... Anybody have any suggestions for a type of communication that could totally replace radio (and by that I mean all radio - cell phones, satellites, everything) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 You might want to see my thread on this issue... so far no one has managed to tell me what the problem is. I did ask you for some clarification, to which you have not yet responded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selena Posted September 12, 2005 Author Share Posted September 12, 2005 Sorry swansont, I'm not through with reading the thread! I should have a response within the hour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Sorry swansont' date='... [/quote'] He was quoting bascule, so I think that's who he was talking to. Take your time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyph Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 If you really want instantaneous communication, I would go with nanoscale wormhole links. They're at least theoretical and vaguely scientifically plausible, if nowhere near to being provable or buildable at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Sorry swansont' date=' I'm not through with reading the thread! I should have a response within the hour! [/quote'] As Tom Mattson surmised, that comment was indeed for bascule. I apologize for any confusion I caused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selena Posted September 12, 2005 Author Share Posted September 12, 2005 Yep, swansont wasn't talking to me... I think I fully understand every 10th word or so from that thread and all its links!!!! Originally posted by bascule You might want to see my thread on this issue... so far no one has managed to tell me what the problem is. Well, I'm guessing that that is what I was looking for (although my science translator isn't around to verify that ). And, it does seem like faster than light communication is not possible though that method... But now it's time for me to ask my stupid question . Most of what I understood the problem with bascule's hypothesis was causality. But I'm not asking about breaking the laws of causality, because I'm not asking about something received before it was sent (does that make sense?). Very poorly described, what I was told is that this is kinda how quantum communications work: You have two qubits that are connected in someway (not physically or in any anyway that was explained to me, just... connected, or maybe related is a better word?) and when one moved (wiggled I think was the word that was used) so did the other, through means that science couldn't really explain. Through this relation / connection it was possible to relay information without sending anything (like a photon or via a radio wave). And thusly instantaneous communication is possible (theoretically). So, my stupid question is, am I way off base in this? Did this information come from fiction, or does it have a real scientific basis? I am so out of my league it's not even funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I did ask you for some clarification, to which you have not yet responded. My response (after I posted on this thread and was doing a little digging) was that I found a book which seems to cover this exact setup and explains why it doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 You have two qubits that are connected in someway (not physically or in any anyway that was explained to me, just... connected, or maybe related is a better word?) and when one moved (wiggled I think was the word that was used) so did the other, through means that science couldn't really explain. Through this relation / connection it was possible to relay information without sending[/i'] anything (like a photon or via a radio wave). And thusly instantaneous communication is possible (theoretically). Sounds like Symbiotic Crystal Resonance Transmission from Stephen Donaldson's The Gap Cycle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DQW Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Selena, when you speak of "the next wave of communications", does it necessarily mean FTL communication ? When I read the OP, my first thought was about communication using quantum encryption. This is theoretically feasible and currently is technologically undoable, but easily lends itself to Sci-Fi. Also, it is possibly the only defense to Quantum Computation, which will make breaking conventional ciphers a child's play. <note: I've lapsed in sci-fi talk here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selena Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 Sounds like Symbiotic Crystal Resonance Transmission from Stephen Donaldson's The Gap Cycle... Okay, I've never heard of this; can anyone give a brief synopsis? I can look it up, but would like to hear some of your guys' views... Selena, when you speak of "the next wave of communications", does it necessarily mean FTL communication ? When I read the OP, my first thought was about communication using quantum encryption. This is theoretically feasible and currently is technologically undoable, but easily lends itself to Sci-Fi. Also, it is possibly the only defense to Quantum Computation, which will make breaking conventional ciphers a child's play. <note: I've lapsed in sci-fi talk here> Ahh, now we're talking!!! Yes, and no for FTL. FTL implies travel and thusly is misleading. (My translator's here and just told me what I'm looking for) I/we need some form of communication that does not involve physically sending something to another location (waves, photons, etc...) and it needs to be instantaneous (or damn close)... If you really want instantaneous communication, I would go with nanoscale wormhole links. They're at least theoretical and vaguely scientifically plausible, if nowhere near to being provable or buildable at the moment. This could totally work... Is in line with what I need. Thanks so much! From Translator: In order to use quantum entanglement would we have to delve into the multiverse theory to establish plausibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Okay, I've never heard of this; can anyone give a brief synopsis? It's completely unrealistic science fiction, heh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selena Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 Yep, completely unrealistic science fiction... Thanks I love a wild goose chase. I guess I need to explain my intentions more. I classically write multicultural children's books for first to third graders. With the help of my dear translator I am moving on to an older age range and a more complex story line. My two main goals in this are to continue on with the multicultural theme and to inspire an interest in science in young (and mostly female) audience. Thusly, I need to have an accurate science base, which is why I've come to this highly reputable site and completely humiliated myself by showing my ignorance. Thanks for being so helpful bascule and really driving this feeling home. Seriously though, thank you so much to all of you who have helped me and taken the time to make serious posts; I greatly appreciate your patients and contributions... I've gained a lot of insight from you and now have a good idea of what I need to research (and the corect terminology to use while doing so )! And to the rest... it's just not worth airing my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locrian Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 From Translator: In order to use quantum entanglement would we have to delve into the multiverse theory to establish plausibility? These days it is difficult to tell what they might mean by "multiverse theory." In context of quantum mechanics it sounds most like the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI). However, MWI is entirely interpretational. Although some thought experiments have been proposed, no observable has ever been suggested that could verify the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics. In other words, whether you accept MWI or not has no affect on any operation or observation. So in short, no. Quantum entanglement is not a useful method of communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 perhaps a form of gravity wave communication? although its not FTL it doesn't have anything to do with radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 A Qubit is just a like a bit, a bit is a binary digit so 1 or 0 represented by an electrical pulse or no electrical pulse (by pulse I mean a pulse of electrons, or a current) so a qubit is just an atomic particle which is either spining up or down. This up or down is translated to 1 or 0, the 1or0 is a bit, the fact it comes from a particle's spin is why it's a quantum bit aka qubit. You will not realistically achieve instant communcation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now