do you think that things will be like star trek one day?

[Cato]

Observational wave function collapse cannot force any particular eigenstate; therefore, no information is transmitted.

EPR paradox can be used to establish an indirect 'measurement' without causing wave function collapse. These 'weak measurements' are used in experiments of this nature.

This doesn't solve your information problem. You lifted this off the last two lines of the second paragraph under the 'Implications for quantum mechanics' concluding section of the EPR paradox article in Wiki. The first sentence doesn't mean what you think it does. The Wiki author likely doesn't understand 'weak measurement' any more than you do since you simply repeated his nonsensical dumping of the concept.

EPR paradox can be used to establish an indirect 'measurement' without causing wave function collapse.

The indirect measurement referenced here is the idea that you can perform a 'strong measurement' on one particle of an entangled pair to indirectly measure the value of the complimentary particle. The wave function does collapse with the measurement. I'm not sure why you stated it didn't.

These 'weak measurements' are used in experiments of this nature.

'Weak measurements' are not the 'indirect measurements' discussed in the preceding sentence. Beginning your sentence with 'These weak measurements' betrays some confusion.

'Weak measurement' is an experimental technique that minimally perturbs an entangled system, as to prevent wave function collapse. The key thing to note here is that the weak measurement technique must be repeated numerous times on a sequence of intentionally created identical entangled systems to average a 'weak value'. Any particular 'weak measurement' says nothing about the system from which it was taken. The 'weak value' is arrived at by averaging the results of all the 'weak measurements'. Furthermore, 'weak value' is not a specific observable value and takes the meaning of a more narrow set of possible eigenstates.

Once a 'strong measurement' is taken of a complimentary property, the 'weak value' can then be used to attempt to quantify the uncertainty of the original property that was weakly measured. This use of 'weak measurement' is still not settled science, but is the most that can be expected right now.

Much of the problem is that people writing science articles will make outlandish claims based on their ignorance of what is meant by 'weak measurement'. They interpret 'weak measurement' to mean we can know a wave function's eigenstate without collapsing the wave function. This simply isn't true. The bullshit cascades from here.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Just waiting for Zefram Cochrane to be born.

You mean Zefram Cockring?

The closer we get to being a type 1 civilisation then I'd say there's always a hope. I think the societal structure of the Star Trek universe is more plausible than the scientific one, but really nobody can say for certain.

I think the social aspect is already in evidence through greater liberalisation and greater globalisation. Probably won't reaching anything resembling Star Trek for several centuries, but bear in mind that the Star Trek universe only came into effect following on from a nuclear world war proceeding which Zefram Cockring began working on developing a warp drive in a world where people of loll nations realised they needed to work together to achieve humanities goals.

Strength through adversity and all that, and hot Vulcan chicks.

[Minimalist]

do you think that things will be like star trek one day?

Cancelled and off-the-air?

Yes.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

do you think that things will be like star trek one day?

Cancelled and off-the-air?

Yes.

[ManMachine]

EPR paradox can be used to establish an indirect 'measurement' without causing wave function collapse. These 'weak measurements' are used in experiments of this nature.

This doesn't solve your information problem. You lifted this off the last two lines of the second paragraph under the 'Implications for quantum mechanics' concluding section of the EPR paradox article in Wiki. The first sentence doesn't mean what you think it does. The Wiki author likely doesn't understand 'weak measurement' any more than you do since you simply repeated his nonsensical dumping of the concept.

EPR paradox can be used to establish an indirect 'measurement' without causing wave function collapse.

The indirect measurement referenced here is the idea that you can perform a 'strong measurement' on one particle of an entangled pair to indirectly measure the value of the complimentary particle. The wave function does collapse with the measurement. I'm not sure why you stated it didn't.

These 'weak measurements' are used in experiments of this nature.

'Weak measurements' are not the 'indirect measurements' discussed in the preceding sentence. Beginning your sentence with 'These weak measurements' betrays some confusion.

'Weak measurement' is an experimental technique that minimally perturbs an entangled system, as to prevent wave function collapse. The key thing to note here is that the weak measurement technique must be repeated numerous times on a sequence of intentionally created identical entangled systems to average a 'weak value'. Any particular 'weak measurement' says nothing about the system from which it was taken. The 'weak value' is arrived at by averaging the results of all the 'weak measurements'. Furthermore, 'weak value' is not a specific observable value and takes the meaning of a more narrow set of possible eigenstates.

Once a 'strong measurement' is taken of a complimentary property, the 'weak value' can then be used to attempt to quantify the uncertainty of the original property that was weakly measured. This use of 'weak measurement' is still not settled science, but is the most that can be expected right now.

Much of the problem is that people writing science articles will make outlandish claims based on their ignorance of what is meant by 'weak measurement'. They interpret 'weak measurement' to mean we can know a wave function's eigenstate without collapsing the wave function. This simply isn't true. The bullshit cascades from here.

I was a little lazy with my response.

You can protect entanglement decoherence using weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal.

abstract

"Decoherence, which causes degradation of entanglement and in some cases entanglement sudden death, is a critical issue faced in quantum information. Protecting entanglement from decoherence, therefore, is essential in practical realization of quantum computing and quantum communication protocols. In this paper, we demonstrate a novel method to protect entanglement from amplitude damping decoherence via weak measurement and quantum measurement reversal. It is shown that even entanglement sudden death can be circumvented."

(Yong-Su Kim ; Jong-Chan Lee ; Osung Kwon ; Yoon-Ho Kim: 2013)

MM

[CapnAwesome]

No. It's hard to predict future technology of course, who would of foreseen the internet.

[StealthySkeptic]

Cancelled and off-the-air?

Yes.

KHAAAAN!!!!

Sorry, I had to say it.

[Little lunch]

No. It's hard to predict future technology of course, who would of foreseen the internet.

Arthur C Clarke.

---

And don't even let me get started on Phillip K Dick. :-)

[Anomalocaris]

do you think that things will be like star trek one day?

Cancelled and off-the-air?

Yes.

And turned into rotting, reanimated corpse wearing cheap bling by JJ Abrams.

Your turn is coming, Star Wars fans.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Cancelled and off-the-air?

Yes.

And turned into rotting, reanimated corpse wearing cheap bling by JJ Abrams.

Your turn is coming, Star Wars fans.

As much as I love star trek, and indeed Star wars 4, 5 & 6, They needed to be left alone once they were done. However I know that's not how Hollywood works; find a brand that hasn't been totally and utterly raped and milk it for every penny by relying on the branding.

Star Trek for me ends at voyager, and Star wars at Jedi. The others are just superfluous.