Would Quantum Communication Affect Time Dilation if at All?

For an extreme example someone orbiting close to a black hole communicating with someone on Earth.

I don't know how anybody would be able to answer this question as of yet although the application of communicating out from black holes might be the most efficient form of galactic archaeology available to us- an exciting idea.

DId you note this finding last week showing evidence of  simultaneity across 36 dwarf galaxies spanning 13 million light years?  We might not understand it but that's some indication that there are physical forces impacting the universe that we have yet to detect much less measure or understand.

How do scientists actually know what occurred between 3 and 6 billion years ago.

What has Quantum communication have to do with black holes?

1.) We can see a lot of it.

2.) We can apply the laws of physics that occur now to the universe when it was younger and extrapolate backwards in time; use that hypothesis what happened in the early universe then look for observations that confirm it.

A good example is Big Bang theory; it uses the known universe expanding, extrapolates back in time to the early universe; we then did a lot of maths to hypothesize the Big Bang and Big Bang physics - used this to predict a universal background radiation at the temperature at which the primordial atomic soup would have become transparent to radiation as it cooled; and ratios of primordial atoms; then made observations of both those things.

I’m curious about frame of reference. What would each observer experience if said conditions are meet?

Does/can quantum communication slice through curvature of time? 

What do you mean by quantum communication or Quantum computing - because the way you’re using those terms don’t really gel in any way with the question asking.

It’s like asking which radio station has the biggest impact on car aerodynamics.

Do you know what I’m trying to get at though? Can you walk me through it? 

I can explain communication in the context of relativity - and I can explain what quantum communication is.

Putting the two together sounds like something you would say right before you suggest reconfiguring the phase discriminators to improve the integrity of the pattern buffers to compensate for nadion radiation interference.

Find out what specifically; my problem has nothing to do with not wanting to find an answer: it’s that the question itself doesn’t make sense.

In the case of astronomy it is often possible to see it directly. If a galaxy is 3 billion light-years away then by definition it takes light from there 3 billion years to get here, meaning we are literally seeing how that galaxy looked 3 billion years ago.

Hi Ram-  good to read your  name again.  

I interpret Reece’s  question to be along the lines of quantum entanglement.  If a group of particles can be  generated entangled so that each particle’s quantum state cannot described independently from other members of the group- even when separated by large distance, can we use that simultaneity for the purpose of transmitting information instantaneously over large distance?

....and is such simultaneity subject to gravitational effects on Time?( I think the answer would be yes)

...and if not, could such simultaneity be employed to transmit information out from the theoretical recesses of very slowly moving time near black holes? (I would say no to the extent that any transmission of information at speeds faster than light is theoretically impossible. 

I do think that Reece’s question is intended more in the spirit of sci-fi possibilities rather than established quantum physics. 

Quantum communication is FTL. Right? 

No because we can’t correlate states until measurements from both particles are compared- meaning we’ve never transmitted Information by exploiting the correlation (and Einstein says we never will)

If you mean quantum entanglement:

Imagine that you can entangle two coins when you clip them such that they cannot land on the same side.

You flip then, then place both into a bag; then take them to other ends of the universe.

They’re still entangled, so the relationship is still maintained.

You open the first bag at the same time the person on the other side opens the bag and tip the coins on the to the table.

One will show heads, one will show tails.

But as you can’t control which way the coins will land, knowing that one will be heads and tails doesn’t transfer any information.

The only way of transferring information would be, for example, one of you calling the other to tell them which side their coin landed. If you did that you would know what your coin will show before you take it out of the bag. But that information has to be sent desperately, and is limited to light speed.

Thanks guys. My thoughts were two untangled particles are in the same exact state. 

I understand the concept.

But is a Galaxy simultaneously both 3 and 6 billion light years distant?

To make a comparison one would have to observe said Galaxy either 3 billion years ago or in 3 billion years time.

My emphasis was on the word actually.

And as you have clearly explained, there is a lot that scientists do not actually know.

Just a whole lot of hypothesising with maths to fit.

No. If you are referring to the link Oromagi put in his post note that it specifically says it looked at 36 separate galaxies. It is possible that some of them were 3 billion light-years away, some 6 billion, and the rest somewhere in between (I read the title but only skimmed the actual paper so am not certain).

There are of course also other methods for astronomers to know the past of galaxies and stars without directly seeing it, analogous to how a geologist can know the history of tectonic shift by studying geological layers.

Well you proposed a hypothetical Galaxy, 3 billion light years distant.

I was referring to the fact that research suggested a "baby boom" of stars occurring between 3 and 6 billion years ago.

So to make a reasonably accurate comparative judgement, your hypothetical galaxy would need to be viewed as I suggested previously.

And  I think that it would be fair to suggest, that there are other methods of making calculated assumptions....Rather than "to know".

In this field of scientific research, the science is ongoing rather than definitive.

We're always at the forefront of knowledge, but never at the conclusion.

You’re emphasis on “actually” misunderstands what science is, and what it shows.

Science doesn’t “actually” know a single thing. Everything is tentative.

What science has, is a collection of testable - and tested explanations of the observations of the universe we make.

We don’t “actually” know anything: we simply have a variety of mathematical models, explanations and frameworks that very accurately correlate to what we see, and allow us to predict how things we haven’t; which we repeatedly test to confirm their accuracy.

Ram is right.  There are few facts in science, only working theories- astrophysics more than most scientific studies.  You might notice that I couched the findings in the language of scientific uncertainty "shows evidence of...", "We might not understand it but that's some indication...", etc.

Olsen, et al.  is working to improve our  model of the universe as it expanded over time.   If we understand that photons of light never die but travel outward through the universe,  their wavelength stretching out ever longer and shallower at a constant rate and direction, then we can use measurements of that Cosmic Microwave Background to model the early universe.   When we compare that radiation to the radiation of the present universe we make a starting point and ending point for our model.  Then we start to fill in that history with known principles of astrophysics.  For example, we  have a pretty good understanding of the life cycle of stars and how those life cycles vary according to mass.  We can also estimate the mass of a galaxy by the size and velocity of  that galaxy.  We also can measure the metallicity of a galaxy and the increase in metallicity over time which is pegged to supernovae.  There are many other inputs on which to build models.  Where models based on various constants demonstrate a high degree of agreement with other models based on other constants, scientist start to trust that data and input it into the models.  Big galaxies introduce way more variables than dwarf galaxies so we have much better models for the birth and progress of dwarf galaxies.  It is easier to measure the changes in light over time from closer galaxies than far away galaxies so we have much better models for closer galaxies.  For this exercise, scientists wanted to be able to pick out individual stars and be able to count factors like frequency of white dwarfs and pulsars, etc. to help lock down ages.  So of the 80 dwarf galaxies in our local group, scientists picked the 36 galaxies that they could see clearly enough to count stars.

The existing models says we should see such & such radiation emitted by Galaxy XYZ 200 million years ago and such & such radiation emitted buy that same galaxy 100 million years later.  These scientists note substantial reductions in radiation compared to the expected model across all these galaxies beginning 600 billion years ago and lasting for 300 billion years, as they break down these finding into pieces (say tens of billions of years), variables like lower white dwarf counts and fewer supernovae suggest that far fewer stars were being created to a degree sufficient to account for the variation in radiation.

I'm sure any student of astronomy would call that an amateurish representation but hopefully that helps explain the scientists' methodology.

If you have never read Frederick Pohl's HeeChee Saga, I would highly recommend these books to people who like thinking about communication within and without black holes.

As humans begin to explore the solar system, they discover some millions of years old artifacts from some ancient culture, including lots of little spaceships.  Humans can figure out how to stop and start these ships but have no understanding of navigation and propulsion and a crazy wild west suicide culture develops for teams who ride these spaceships out into the galaxy- something like one in six returns with some tech or information worth exploiting but the majority of people just die miserably.  By the fourth book, one mad scientist has figured out one ship sufficiently to plunge deep into the gravity wells around black holes, trying to rescue a lost relative plunging into singularity at ever slowing rates of speed but accidently discovers that the HeeChee shipbuilding civilization is still alive and is hiding in the super slow time of the gravity wells to escape an massive invasion of the Milky Way by a hostile race from another galaxy, and now humanity has just outed their hiding place.

great stuff.

Any place in that last post that reads billions should be millions, sorry for the error 

I agree entirely.

That was the point I was making.

There is no that we can make an actual, comparative assessment over a 3 billion year period, of a Galaxy that is 3 billion light years distant.

A "baby boom of stars" is at best, calculated speculation.

What on earth? Lol no.

I don’t think you understood what I meant at all.

Science doesn’t deal with absolute truth: it deals with levels of confidence. On this respect, there is no absolute knowledge or truth - we can’t “actually” know anything for sure; because everything is subject to change with more evidence.

Saying that science is calculated speculation is the type of thing intellectually dishonest creationists say as rhetoric to try and suggest and imply science is faulty, rather than show it.

Jumping to conclusions about what science can and can’t do without any analysis of how they made the determination appears to be similar.

The reality is, that at its worst - for ideas proposing to explain some event or aspect of space; begin as grounded testable hypotheses that fit within the known laws of physics or are specifically suggested by the data; are not held to be true, and are investigated. 

At worst the type of accepted science you’re talking about, is tested hypothesis that fit the facts, have produced valid predictions that have shown to be true; are consistent with observations and provide both explanatory and predictive power. 

This is many ballparks away from speculation.

I agree.

Other than the last line.

And that's just semantics.

The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.    Oxford Dictionaries.