TimeFlipper
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,705
Hartey, it was you all along who started thinking that the word "Communication" was meant to mean, people talking with each other...
I made an error not realising earlier that you got somehow confused with semantics....You were even confused in an early posting when you said about the article from HDRKID quote: The article is about quantum computing, which is quantum information, not communication...The word is used, yes, but the article is about a method to reduce noise in the signal, which signal the quantum state information (I hope Hartey tells us the method of reducing noise in the signal, which signal is the quantum state, in a quantum computer)..
When HDRKID posted the link to the Article, in Paragraph 1 it starts of with, (Entanglement, once called spooky action at a distance by Einstein, is the phenomenon in which the quantum states of separated particles cannot be described independently...This puzzling phenomenon is widely exploited in the quantum physicists toolbox and is a key resource for applications in secure "Quantum Communication" over long distances and quantum cryptography)..
Likewise in Paragraph 3 of the Article where it says, ("Quantum Communication", under real world conditions, this new method could hence prove helpful for distributing entanglement in a future quantum internet).....In the Article, neither use of the word Communication, was meant to mean communication with a person, at least thats how I interpreted it to be, because at present there is no way devised yet that can modulate a photon with a persons voice....
Its unfortunate that you really don't know enough about what entanglement means, by thinking that a persons voice can actually modulate a photon, only because you believe it can only be done by using force of a particular state on the local particle, even that is well below a slightly intelligent response
..
Last edited: