>>12820531>>12820925>>12821472>the entanglement doesn’t happen until S reaches Bthis isn’t correct
i don’t know what the right word is, maybe ‘the measurement doesn’t happen until S reaches B’ is better
like i said i’m not educated in this field
i’ve read a few articles on quantum encryption keys and quantum computing
from those, my understanding is that
>you have 3 basic states (null, 0, 1) instead of the usual 2 states (0, 1)>the ‘entanglement’ is permanently broken when you take the measurementmy line of thinking is that if you stored one photon at point A, and sent the other photon to point B
and you knew the exact distance and travel time
‘A’ could look at it’s stored photon at the time when it is expecting ‘B’ to act on the matching entangled photon at the other end
if A sees the photon “spinning in the up direction”, it would interpret this as a 0
if A sees the photon “spinning in the down direction”, it would interpret this as 1
if A sees the photon “spinning in both directions”, it would interpret this as null / ‘no message’ and could ignore it and just discard the photon
since the connection is constant, and the distance / travel time is known, couldn’t the three states be used as a medium to transfer data ‘backwards’ and ‘instantly’?
it wouldn’t be some huge advancement in the amount of data we can send over a set amount of time (bits per second)
but we could send data across vast distances without having to wait for the signal to reach its destination (we could have a live view of Mars instead of a view from 20 minutes ago)
