DOW-UAP-D133 — Quantum Entanglement and Space Communication

The report examines whether quantum correlations could support observer-to-observer signaling, including faster-than-light and retrocausal applications, rather than reporting a demonstrated communications technology.

This paper reviews quantum entanglement and nonlocality and considers the possibility that this phenomenon could be used for sending observer-to-observer signals.

It says the central question had no compelling answer and treats practical nonlocal communication as conditional on future experimental evidence.

The question investigated in this paper is whether quantum nonlocality is the private domain of nature or whether it can be used in experimental situations to send signals from one observer to another.

The surveyed Bell tests agreed with quantum mechanics and strongly contradicted local hidden-variable models, but the report distinguishes those correlations from controllable messaging.

Their results were in agreement with the predictions of quantum mechanics and were inconsistent with local hidden-variable theories by 6. 7 standard deviations.

The report says polarization-entanglement experiments do not enable signaling because an observer cannot force an arriving photon into a chosen state.

he is not free to force the photon into a particular state of that basis, as would be required for nonlocal communication.

It describes no-signal theorems as asserting that correlations survive while changes to one subsystem produce no locally observable messaging effect in the other.

These theorems assert that in separated measurements involving entangled quantum systems, the quantum correlations will be preserved, but there will be no effect apparent to an observer in one sub-system

The Dopfer experiment switched an interference pattern by moving a detector, but the report explicitly says this was not nonlocal communication because a classical coincidence link was required.

the Dopfer experiment does not demonstrate nonlocal communication because, like the Ghost Interference experiment, it requires a classical communication link to impose the coincidence requirement between the detected photons

When coincidence filtering was removed from the surveyed experiments, no two-slit interference distribution was observed.

in both experiments the authors report that no two- slit interference distribution is observed

The report identifies a coherence-versus-entanglement tradeoff that may prevent signaling and says the required operating point had not been shown.

An unresolved issue that requires further theoretical consideration and experimental testing is whether there is a "sweet spot" in the experimental design that embraces both partial coherence and partial entanglement

Its proposed coincidence-free optical setup is an experimental test: only a switch-controlled pattern change would count as direct evidence and falsify the cited no-signal results.

If the pattern observed by the camera can indeed be changed by switching the optical fiber routing, then this would constitute a direct demonstration on nonlocal communication.

Even under the proposed setup, the report says a signal would require distributions from many photon detections rather than a single entangled pair.

It should be clear that no rea l signal can be communicated with a single photon pair. Only when multiple photons are detected can the underlying distribution function become apparent.

The retrocausal and superluminal sections expressly assume for discussion that the unproven signaling method works before calculating its implications.

we will assume for the sake of discussion that nonlocal signaling is possible and will consider its implications for the speed of transmission of signals.

The Mars-rover control architecture is a hypothetical application built on that assumed nonlocal link, with a conventional channel still carrying delayed imagery and data.

In parallel with this nonlocal link, a conventional microwave or optical link would be used to communicate video images and other data to the Earth station.

The report says experimental searches for nonlinear corrections to ordinary quantum mechanics had all failed and only established very low upper limits.

Regrettably, all such experimental attempts to observe the nonlinear effects have failed, producing only very low upper limits.

It concludes that usable nonlocal communication is an experimental question and awaits coincidence-free tests rather than claiming a successful demonstration.

Ultimately, the question of whether nonlocal communication is possible is an experimental one. The issue should be resolvable by testing for nonlocal communication and observing what experimental limits appear.