Quantum Entanglement and the Quantum Telephone

This hypothesis is conceptual, and not a ratified scientific theory.

The video segment (shown below) covers Aspect’s 1985 experiment demonstrating how entanglement can be seen — as an entangled state affecting two particles instantaneously:
https://youtu.be/BFvJOZ51tmc?t=1375

In this video, Bell states (at that time) he cannot use entanglement as a form of communications. With respect to individual sets of entangled particles/photons as being determined by causality, this is true. However, as a stream of entangled particles independent of causality (being only local) — that’s entirely different. Continue reading

Open Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson: SETI as you like it?

Constellations-in-the-night-skyShould we be looking for intentional EM signals?

The SETI program represents an unquenchable desire we humans have in learning more about who we are within the grand scheme of things. However, the fundamental arguments supporting the search for stray signals as an indicator of cosmic life are counterintuitive. To go one step further and redefine this need as a search for intentional EM signals is a galactic blunder. Continue reading

sars

Alone in the Universe: A safe choice?

Open letter to SETI:

There are those at the SETI program who wish to send signals out into space — hoping a reply will make it easier for us to discover life in the universe. I’ve addressed this concept before, however, there are those who fear such an act would invite unwanted visitors from a civilization far more advanced than our own. So the question remains: should we be concerned about distant civilizations looking to Earth with ideas on our natural resources? Continue reading

Sustainable Civilization

Previously, I read an article that suggested growth in human population will likely devastate the resources of earth (amongst other ill effects). This article sourced a report from a NASA-funded study on the likely collapse of a given civilization where social imbalance between the poor and the rich existed. Below the article were typical public comments. Some comments suggested overpopulation was the reason for unsustainable human activity. Interesting reasoning, if it were not completely untenable. The following was my response:

The perspective that population is the obstacle for a sustainable species is highly subjective in a social frame, and relative in a scientific frame. To point the finger at overpopulation is to suggest the Earth’s eco-system is there to absorb the punishment of humanity, and our species has simply grown too large for the earth to cope. Expectedly, the subjective nature of society is void of merit in supporting any known sustainability model. To correct any imbalance in sociality, the nature of human society must align with the principals of a sustainable model.

Universal Equilibrium will always drive towards a state of maximum entropy. It discriminates nothing — not even humans. So yes, humanity may suffer a catastrophic correction as a species; however, as sentient beings we carry the capability to protect ourselves from our own actions — much like wearing a helmet when riding a bike, or a seatbelt when driving a car. We need to put measures in place protecting us from our global activities. Identifying the 1% as the culprit for our troubles is misguided. The 1% exists as a byproduct of our current social model. How does it go?: “With great power comes great responsibility”. So ask yourself, if you had unlimited financial means, would your actions be any different than those of the 1%?

The sustainable activity of the 1% are statistically disproportionate to even a basic sustainability model. Winning the lottery is a prime example of where our society tends to take aim: big house, lots of cars, heated swimming pool… you get the picture. The truth of the matter is, those of the 1% did not win the lottery (a one-time event). They leveraged the mechanisms within society to reach excessive financial gain. The activities of those who won the lottery are somewhat dissimilar, as the underlying nature of how those individuals got to the 1% mark is part of their persona. They are there [because] they worked to get there (the journey), and that means they will use their enhanced financial means to protect that enhancement out of entitlement. No merit is being made for entitlement, just that those of the 1% have a distinct advantage to influence their position in society, and that means protecting that advantage will automatically become the first seatbelt/helmet they put in place. It’s blind human nature.

Human nature influenced from social evolution can be sustainable. Unfortunately, there are fundamental contradictions in how our current society operates. No less does it make sense for low-income housing to exist next to a casino, than it does for society to reward it’s members by reinforcing the mechanisms that spawned the 1% — suppressing the composite ability of society as a whole. It’s a self feeding cycle akin to linseed oil in a cotton rag: the more it dries, the more it heats up. It quickly boils down to Universal Rights as a species. Until universal rights are socially observed, policies of human societies will stumble reactively behind the activity of those who are charged with its welfare — and ultimately the direction of our species.

SETI

sars

Should we contact extraterrestrial civilizations?

The question is the source of much debate, however the topics of debate might seem miscued. The fundamental answer to the question is yes, however the time and method is really where the debate should focus.

As an evolving species, our natural curiosity will ultimately answer with a unanimous yes for contact. This natural drive to explore is a function of our entropic style of sociality — the built-in function of complex organisms: expanding all possible vectors to continue ones existence. To ask if we should or not is not debatable. Our segmented cultures simply cannot prevent the inevitable action of every human. Someone somewhere will make the attempt, if not already.

The SETI program that searches for possible signals coming from intelligent life is fundamentally misguided. There are several reasons why it’s unlikely a civilization from a distant star system would transmit a signal for others to read. Aside from the mechanics of producing a signal of sufficient power to reach us, we must look to ourselves as an example in how a species of technical growth would communicate. From the time the first radio signal was invented to the complex digital multiplex radio systems used today, our progression in understanding electromagnetic signals has increased exponentially. The timeline for this to happen is a mere blink-of-an-eye in the timeframe of written communications as humans. A mere pop of static in the human timeline, and a microscopic crack in the timeline of the cosmos. If there are thousands of extraterrestrial species in our galaxy alone, the chances just one of them is at our technological stage would be minuscule.

The idea of searching for EM patterns in the cosmos is a contradiction in itself. How much effort is needed to capture the signal from one of our own probes at the edge of our solar system? Given the power needed to reach another star, we would have to wait generations for a possible reply. In that time, our exponential growth in the understanding of EM signals will have changed completely — and for the very same reason our technological understanding will untimely surpass the need for interstellar probes. The Voyageur spacecraft may never reach a distant civilization to deliver the message carved into its golden record. The exponential curve of our advancement will have us flying past it long before it reaches one quarter the distance to the nearest star.

To transmit a massive EM signal into space would be a beacon, self proclaiming our naive and stone-age status to the cosmos. The transmission power would have to be so great, it would be quickly understood as intentional, not expecting a response for hundreds of years. At that point, it’s more likely we would’ve abandoned EM signals all together — replaced by something far faster, efficient, and less harmful. The transmission would also suggest we as a species cannot anticipate our own change, that we’d be technologically frozen in time, waiting for a reply using the same method. If we reached a civilization that could read and decode the message, what are the chances they might realize a reply would be just as foolish as our call? Would they build a transmitter knowing it would take hundreds of years to reach us? Would they conclude that by the time they received the signal, we would have evolved beyond that method already — even more by the time their reply would reach us? Logically, our method of signal is the only message they need to read. Whatever’s contained in the signal would be a certification of our blunder. There’s also the chance our signal could insult the intended recipient — on the basis of expecting them to be equally naive — daring them to reply as though it were a galactic joke.

If we are to earn enough respect from possible advanced civilizations — warranting a reply, we mustn’t contradict ourselves in suggesting we have the ability to anticipate our own evolution. So how then are we to communicate with life in the cosmos if smoke-signals are passé? Research in quantum mechanics is a great direction to explore. Quantum entanglement can be used as a method for instant transmission of information. Further research may find entanglement properties that allow the encoding of messages. Perhaps the broadcast of galactic messages are already in use from entangled particles of light arriving from the stars of the night sky, or perhaps not. In either case, searching for signals in a medium fundamentally barred from galactic use is the same as building a mega-watt stereo speaker to transmit an audio message to someone miles away. Would you expect a reply in the same medium? Perhaps the clear reply will arrive in the form of police knocking at your door — a galactic response I think we’d like to avoid.