-
Wouldnt wave function collapse allow for instant information transfer?
Posted by ELS122 on 16 May, 2024 05:51 -
Wouldnt the wave function collapse allow for instant information transfer over any distance? or am I misunderstanding how it works?
And for example allow for us to see if the wave function of some particle has already been collapsed, hinting towards it being observed by some alien? -
Wouldnt the wave function collapse allow for instant information transfer over any distance?
No. -
Waveform function collapse does not generate "new" information; it merely reveals existing but previously hidden information
-
No, and this is known as the No-Communication Theorem (NCT) in quantum information theory.
Let's say Alice prepares pairs of entangled photons, keeping one and sending the other out into space. When Alien-Bob performs measurements on those, this changes the overall quantum state. But the NCT shows that it doesn't change the statistics of any measurement Alice can do on her photons. No experiment she can do would allow her to know if Alien-Bob ever detected the other half.
It is only when they finally get to talk over a normal communication channel and compare notes that they will find their measurements are correlated. -
Waveform function collapse does not generate "new" information; it merely reveals existing but previously hidden information
It's doubtful there is 'hidden' information because of Bell's Theorem and the issue of non-locality being required to conform to quantum mechanics - which I think the OP is getting at. Not the creation of 'new' information, but the encoding of information when entangled particles are created and then separated.
switchabl's explanation is correct in referencing the No-Communication Theorem.
In my goofier imaginations, I've wondered if a resolution to the apparent paradox is that light speed really is anisotropic and the entangled particles DO change instantaneously... in one direction, but it all averages out to speed c in the wash whenever anyone tries to confirm the transmission thus still obeying relativity which is built around the two-way speed of light.
-
Wouldnt the wave function collapse allow for instant information transfer over any distance? or am I misunderstanding how it works?
You are, but don't worry - nobody understands. -
Waveform function collapse does not generate "new" information; it merely reveals existing but previously hidden information
It's doubtful there is 'hidden' information because of Bell's Theorem and the issue of non-locality being required to conform to quantum mechanics - which I think the OP is getting at. Not the creation of 'new' information, but the encoding of information when entangled particles are created and then separated.
switchabl's explanation is correct in referencing the No-Communication Theorem.
In my goofier imaginations, I've wondered if a resolution to the apparent paradox is that light speed really is anisotropic and the entangled particles DO change instantaneously... in one direction, but it all averages out to speed c in the wash whenever anyone tries to confirm the transmission thus still obeying relativity which is built around the two-way speed of light.
I was trying to make it as simple and understandable as possible.
The entangled particles do not change, at all. The "encoding of information" happens at the point of entanglement, not at the point of waveform collapse. Any imposition upon an entangled particle after separation breaks the entanglement. -
I agree, but most scientists would not as it seems to imply hidden variables.Waveform function collapse does not generate "new" information; it merely reveals existing but previously hidden information
It's doubtful there is 'hidden' information because of Bell's Theorem and the issue of non-locality being required to conform to quantum mechanics - which I think the OP is getting at. Not the creation of 'new' information, but the encoding of information when entangled particles are created and then separated.
switchabl's explanation is correct in referencing the No-Communication Theorem.
In my goofier imaginations, I've wondered if a resolution to the apparent paradox is that light speed really is anisotropic and the entangled particles DO change instantaneously... in one direction, but it all averages out to speed c in the wash whenever anyone tries to confirm the transmission thus still obeying relativity which is built around the two-way speed of light.
I was trying to make it as simple and understandable as possible.
The entangled particles do not change, at all. The "encoding of information" happens at the point of entanglement, not at the point of waveform collapse. Any imposition upon an entangled particle after separation breaks the entanglement.
A pair of gloves, split between two boxes and sent on their way. Open one box and you instantly know the state of the other one. No mystery, no spooky action. It's an analogy, but then I've never seen a convincing explanation of Bell's inequality that wasn't also full of analogies. -
I agree, but most scientists would not as it seems to imply hidden variables.Waveform function collapse does not generate "new" information; it merely reveals existing but previously hidden information
It's doubtful there is 'hidden' information because of Bell's Theorem and the issue of non-locality being required to conform to quantum mechanics - which I think the OP is getting at. Not the creation of 'new' information, but the encoding of information when entangled particles are created and then separated.
switchabl's explanation is correct in referencing the No-Communication Theorem.
In my goofier imaginations, I've wondered if a resolution to the apparent paradox is that light speed really is anisotropic and the entangled particles DO change instantaneously... in one direction, but it all averages out to speed c in the wash whenever anyone tries to confirm the transmission thus still obeying relativity which is built around the two-way speed of light.
I was trying to make it as simple and understandable as possible.
The entangled particles do not change, at all. The "encoding of information" happens at the point of entanglement, not at the point of waveform collapse. Any imposition upon an entangled particle after separation breaks the entanglement.
A pair of gloves, split between two boxes and sent on their way. Open one box and you instantly know the state of the other one. No mystery, no spooky action. It's an analogy, but then I've never seen a convincing explanation of Bell's inequality that wasn't also full of analogies.
This is probably the best explanation on YT of the apparent paradox and doesn't use many analogies but breaks down the math of the experiments themselves. Unfortunately, photons are more complex than gloves
-
Unfortunately, photons are more complex than gloves
That is so funny, but apt at the same time. We fundamentally understand how gloves work: we don't even need to think about it. But the way photons work, really throws a normal sane human mind into a loop. There just isn't an intuitive analog that captures even half of it, because they are that different to stuff happening in the human scale. It applies to all quantum-scale phenomena, too. And while "complex" is definitely the wrong word for the quip to be exactly right, it is an excellent example of how we don't even have intuitive terms to describe this yet! The only word that comes to my mind here is "weird", but it's even less descriptive!
This is also why I like analogous approximations like "wave-particle duality". No, it is not real: the physical world doesn't have that duality; it is just an approximate description of the actual behaviour that can best be described in math. But, as an approximate description, it allows one of the weirdest? most complex? hardest to grasp? features at the quantum scale to be understandable for a "common sense" mind, by combining a pair of analogs. To me, these are the equivalents of parables of human behaviour and life, except for the scientific realm: not to be taken as the absolute truth or exact description, but as a tool to gain intuitive understanding, in a form you can examine and build more understanding on top of, without having to treat is as a religious fact that is not to be questioned.
(It is also why I don't really like participating in physics-related discussions, even though I still have all the relevant textbooks starting from Brehm–Mullin onwards I could check for details. Unless one is a researcher on the matter, I believe an intuitive understanding of when various models and analogs are applicable, is more important than managing the math or remembering the model details. To some physicists this is semi-offensive, because they've spent literal years to learn and understand the actual models and physics behind them. Especially analogs like wave-particle duality are ... well, demeaning/overly simple/not correct enough; and sometimes considered a tool for only those that cannot understand the real weird actual physics it is based on. I lean more towards synthesis myself, and feel like opening up those analogs for engineers and others to use, is like applying game theory to old parables: it tends to result in surprising advances in the sort of intuitive understanding that lets people create new, better, more interesting stuff. (Game theory + old parables = actual model of enlightened self-interest, for example, which tickles me pink.) But, for all my verbosity, my previous attempts at this haven't fared well, the underlying idea not carried over or received well enough; so I shall desist.) -
Unfortunately, photons are more complex than gloves
Gloves certainly have some photons, too, beside other stuff, which makes gloves way more complex than a photon.
-
Wave function is not real.
EM waves are mathematical models of statistical appearance of photon interactions.
And not real.
Photon is also less than real, but clearly more than nothing.
So a quantum object. -
If the photon is not real, then what is real? Define "real".
Photons have a physical manifestation, therefore they are as real as anything else in this Universe. Photons make a lot of sense when thought of as small packets of waves. Undulations in an omnipresent electromagnetic field. -
The measurement is real.
Effect of energy is real.
Lot of sense is not very accurate, nor is collapse of a wave.
We know that a photon happens, but we cannot know anything about the photon.
Reread what NA wrote.
Before photon interacts it can't be that point like object.
When it interacts it can't be that wave like object.
How it interacts with a slit if it is a quanta. -
You didn't say what "real" means. Instead, you give 2 examples:
1. a measurement is real
2. effect of energy is real
To me, "real" means that it has a standalone and physical existence, something that is independent of my will, and independent of my thinking.
By my definition, a measurement is not real. A measurement is a comparison made against a reference unit. That is not real.
A measurement is a human thing, done at my will, and the reference unit is also according to a human agreement. Nature does not measure. The second example of yours fits my definition, the effect of energy will be the same, independent of my will.
Can't comment any further, unless we establish a common set of terms and definitions.
Not saying you are wrong, only saying that according to my definition, one of the examples you gave do not match my definition. It's OK for words to have different meaning from different people, but we need to identify those differences, or else we won't be able to communicate with each other.
So what is your definition for "real"? -
I meant a fundamental measurement, a change of state of measuring apparatus.
An interaction of photon and electron is a change of state.
A change from nothing has happened to something has happened is real.
Fermions are real, they can be measured.
Photon is not unreal, it's overall reality is less that 1 but more than 0.
It's a quantum object.
How is a wave from distant galaxy collapsing to scientist's eye.
The name is incomplete, complete name is a probability wave.
-
What do you mean by fundamental measurement? To measure, means to compare with a reference. What is the difference between a measurement and a fundamental measurement? From the rest of of the text, I suspect that by "fundamental measurement" you mean counting events, right? But I'm not sure.
Anyway, I can not follow the line of thoughts from the rest of the text, I am not sure what you mean by photon not unreal, less than 1 more than 0, or if the line about wave function collapse is a question or an affirmation.
You seem to be taking the Copenhagen interpretation as established facts, but I'm not convinced that that interpretation is correct. I'm temped to reject it, but I don't have a definitive proof that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong.
To return the topic question, no, information can not be transferred instantly.
There seems to be a direct relation between information and energy, similar with how there is a formula between mass and energy. This suggests information can be transformed into energy, and energy transformed into information, just like mass can be transformed into energy, or energy into mass.
So, if we accept the transitivity of mass ~= energy ~= information, and the fact that mass or energy can not be transferred faster than light (FTL), let alone instantaneously transferred, this means information can not go FTL either.
If it were to be otherwise, then one would be able transfer energy FTL by converting that energy into information first, then transmit the information instantly, and convert it back to energy at the receiving point. And if you put the receiver and the transmitter at the same point, you would instantly double the energy out of nothing. Which contradicts physics, because it is not possible to build over-unity devices.
I'm not sure if reductio ad absurdum based on physics is a valid demonstration as if it were a math demonstration based on reduction ad absurdum, but if it is accepted, then no matter which method one would try to transfer info FTL, entanglement or something else, it would still remain an impossibility.
But then, if it is impossible to create something out of nothing, then where from is it all this "stuff" around us?
Why is it there something, rather than nothing?
Let's notice the words "where from" (which assumes only a transfer would be possible, but not creation out of nothing) so it might be a malformed question. And in the second question the word "why", which assumes causality.
There are so many tacit assumption embedded in the way we are thinking. Will we ever be able to dissembed ourselves out of that?
But then, how does the mind works, what does it means to understand, what does it means to be aware, and how only a very narrow slice of reality (only the thin slice revealed by our sensory inputs) made us act, and think, and be what we are? I guess it would be an impossibility to "disembed" ourselves from all the past experiences, and from all the tacit assumptions, such that we would be able to think in an absolute manner, totally abstract. I have a pet theory about that, too, but enough rambling for one post.
-
There are so many tacit assumption embedded in the way we are thinking. Will we ever be able to dissembed ourselves out of that?
It depends on who you refer to by "we".
Analytical people who naturally gravitate towards scientific approach? Or the people who don't have the interest to consider such things, and instead treat our technology as it was magick? Who reject the scientific method because it was mostly discovered by males, and therefore suspect and oppressive? Or because their religion has all the truth they ever need?
Not all humans are suitable for scientific work and engineering. It is part of the success of the human race: we're so varied that given sufficient population base, we can find sufficient individuals to do any task. However, the push towards unity, equity, and uniformity seems to completely ignore that, and force everyone to the same mold. I am pretty convinced that as a species, we're driving ourselves towards a behavioural sink: going the Universe 25 way. -
Fundamental measurement is a binary thing, nothing is no measurements, something is a measurement, quality is irrelevant.
It happens when neutrino and first part of a neutrino detector interacts.
The rest of a measurement is forming it to apparatus controller acceptable formation.
With laser one can think that the probability of a beam is pretty high, I can accept that, actually quite easily.
But a probability wave of every photon is still ball symmetrical.
Combination of time and phase constructs the beam.
A probability part of the wave can't carry information. -
I prefer to look at it in a simple way. Two particles fly in different directions. Together they have an average characteristic A-B but we don't know which is A and which is B until the wave function collapses.
So someone observes one of the particles and finds it to have one of these two characteristics. The wave function then collapses and one has characteristic A and the other has characteristic B. However, the first observer has no way of CONTROLLING if the particle he observes (causing the wave function to collapse by that act of observation) will have characteristic A or characteristic B. That is fully random and only known AFTER the wave function collapse has occurred. It can not be decided upon BEFORE that collapse (like a telegraph operator deliberately sending a dot or a dash) so it can not be used to control that collapse or transmit any information to an observer who subsequently observes the other, far distant particle. Our cosmic observer is only "transmitting" TRULY RANDOM dots and dashes. No information there.
It's kind of like the particles decide which will be which, not the two observers. And they only do so as the collapse occurs with no control by the observer.
Edited 5/20/24 to correct typos ("of" changed to "or" and "dasher" changed to "dashes"). -
There are so many tacit assumption embedded in the way we are thinking. Will we ever be able to dissembed ourselves out of that?
It depends on who you refer to by "we".
Analytical people who naturally gravitate towards scientific approach? Or the people who don't have the interest to consider such things, and instead treat our technology as it was magick? Who reject the scientific method because it was mostly discovered by males, and therefore suspect and oppressive? Or because their religion has all the truth they ever need?
Not all humans are suitable for scientific work and engineering. It is part of the success of the human race: we're so varied that given sufficient population base, we can find sufficient individuals to do any task. However, the push towards unity, equity, and uniformity seems to completely ignore that, and force everyone to the same mold. I am pretty convinced that as a species, we're driving ourselves towards a behavioural sink: going the Universe 25 way.
To whoever is complaining most science was made by men, tell them all the people were made by women. Women made all the people ever. How about that?
Back to the question about abstract thinking, by "we" I meant a human mind, in general. Now, that you made me think how much of that "we" can be extended across various types of minds, I guess no mind can totally detach itself from its former training and experiences, such that it would be able to think in a genuinely abstract and unbiased way. Not even an artificial mind would be able to do that.
The most abstract think I know is mathematics. But even a mathematical proof starts from set of axioms. Change one axiom, and suddenly the sum of angles is no longer 180. Isn't that just like human bias? In the sense that the outcome may be different, because we have started from a different set of axioms?
Similar happens with the human thinking. Just like in math there are axioms, humans do have knowledge "tokens" (heard the term "token" in some GPT 101 video, and borrowing it because the human mind works about the same, IMO). In contrast with math axioms, the tokens of the human mind are very numerous. They start to form by themselves, by classifying the data streams coming from our sensory input. The most repeated patterns become categories, they become the "tokens" in terms of which we think. This learning is mostly by observing, and later by interacting with the world, the tokens we discover ourselves, before school. Later these tokens become even more distilled, better classified, more tokens from social interaction, etc.
If it is easy to see how a single difference in one axiom can create very different results, then a human mind, which uses tokens instead of axioms, can produce all kinds of results from different individuals. There is one more difference: while in math the noise is zero, the human mind is very noisy, so even more unpredictability.
I think the people characterized as more creative, are those with a noisier brain. I think new ideas are, more or less, caused by noise added to exact reasoning. Sometimes context can be just as noise, in the sense that the surrounding world can distract us in a way that perturbs the reasoning just like noise. Exaggerated example here, apple falls on your head, and bang, you realize who knows what. Artificial neural network can not do that naturally. GPT adds intentional randomness to the result, or else it will always generate the same answer.
No idea if what I've wrote makes any sense. It's not a pet theory I've come up with overnight, I keep thinking about it, seeking for arguments while trying to avoid cherry-picking, and keep patching whatever contradictions I might find in it. It started somewhere in the late 80's, when for some reason, I wanted to simulate "life". I mean, a world of interactive sprites (the set of pixel seen in the early 8bit video games).
Initial idea was to make them interact, and observe their behavior. That was before YouTube, in BASIC, on a ZX Spectrum with an 8bit Z80/3.5MHz, and only 32k.
At that point I didn't know about genetic algorithms or AI. I never finished that as envisioned, but I did found some interesting result, the most memorable was that life needs a certain level of ramdomness in order to thrive. To less and you get a repetitive, or even worst a frozen world, too much randomness and it all disintegrates into noise.
Later the IBM PC XT arrived, but never repeated the experimented on a bigger world. Then later the Internet took flight, and found about genetic algorithms and various types of neural networks. Never studied any of these in a rigorous way, but tinkered with them here and there.
Since then, I keep noticing similarities between artificial NN, and how the brain works.
Rambling too much already, to sum it up (in a disorganized way):
- learning is identifying repeating patterns
- we construct our internal tokens according to what we were exposed to the most often
- out of all that is out there, we sense only a very narrow slice
- tokens are the building blocks of our inner represention of the outside world
- tokens are somehow similar with the axioms in math, as in building blocks
- main difference from axioms is that the inner tokens are keep morphing over our entire life, they are fuzzy, and not fixed/frozen like an axiom
- tokens can be used to simulate, or to predict an outcome (talking about the continuous inner prediction, the simulation we do in an automated way. Once we accumulate enough tokens and enough experience, the brain does not wait for the sensory datastream, it starts to predict it, it starts to simulate the most probable outcome in advance. What we think we perceive and see, our awareness of the surroundings, is mostly faked by brain predictions. That is why one can look and didn't see the car, because the brain didn't anticipated there might be a car coming from there.
- to understand something means to have enough tokens such that you are able to simulate the outcome in your mind. If I throw you an object, you can catch it without writing the parabola equation. You can visualize in your mind the trajectory, which means you understand. If you have a formula and need to calculate something, that is knowing, not understanding.
- other animals are self aware, too, they can understand and simulate/predict the outcome in advance, too, the more neurons they have, the more awareness
- human behavior is not well determined, it is influenced a lot by randomness, both internal noise, and external unexpected influences
- and the most scary of all, the process of adjusting and distilling our inner tokens never stops. It happens whether we want it or not. We can not "pause" learning. Which means we are all susceptible to brainwashing and propaganda, even when we know it's propaganda. If a stimuli is repeated over and over, eventually it will alter your existing tokens, maybe form new ones, too. This is how I explain the saying "A lie repeated a thousand times become truth".
The funniest aspect of the last one, is that one can self-brainwash accidentally, simply by repeated exposure.
Sometimes this is intentional, as in sticking self-motivational posters around the room, but more often it happens as an unintended side effect of spending too much time in a wrong circle of friends, or on bad social networks, etc. -
Fundamental measurement is a binary thing, nothing is no measurements, something is a measurement, quality is irrelevant.
It happens when neutrino and first part of a neutrino detector interacts.
The rest of a measurement is forming it to apparatus controller acceptable formation.
With laser one can think that the probability of a beam is pretty high, I can accept that, actually quite easily.
But a probability wave of every photon is still ball symmetrical.
Combination of time and phase constructs the beam.
A probability part of the wave can't carry information.
What if the Simulation Hypothesis is correct and we live in a computer simulation, does it make the world around us, including the photons, the measuring apparatus, the observer who observes the apparatus, real? -
Outside of the universe is not well defined.
But every day life can be easily defined as not real.
Simply because nothing is actually touching anything.
Maybe everything is just ripples on the surface of nothingness. -
What is nothing?
-
I know I shouldn't try, but.. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.
The concepts of "wavefunction" and "wavefunction collapse" (or "quantum state collapse") themselves are analogs of the mathematical properties we do know do apply.
For example, in the double-slit experiment, because the interference pattern occurs even when individual quanta are passed through –– easily implemented with photons and electrons, but applies to all quanta –– we know that each individual quanta passes through both slits. That in fact, it is what we call the wavefunction that passes through the slits. It is not strictly speaking a probability distribution: although the squared wavefunction amplitude correlates to the statistical distribution of the measurables, due to the interference in the individual quanta double-slit experiment, it does have to pass through both slits at the same time.
If we add any kind of interaction that determines which slit a quanta passed through, the interference vanishes. This is what we call a wavefunction collapse.
The key thing to realize is that in the default double-slit experiment, the quanta interacts with the double slit as a wavefunction: it really passes through both slits. When we modify the interaction so that the quanta is localized to either slit passing through, the interference vanishes, and the wavefunction "collapses" to a particle (according to the probability distribution of the wavefunction magnitude squared).
(In general "wavefunction collapse" or "quantum state collapse" refers to an interaction which causes one or more properties to "collapse" to a real measurable value, with probabilities described by the square of the wavefunction amplitude.)
We have no fucking idea whether wave functions are real, whether wavefunction collapse is real, or whether these are just "side effects" of the mathematical representation we currently use for these. Really.
We do know that the mathematical models work so well that we haven't been able to "break" them yet. But they don't tell us what or why, only how.
Let's consider the situation where a photon hits some solid matter.
In most cases, the photon hits one of the outer electrons bound to an atom. Mathematically, the interaction is not between two point-like objects that pick a random location and properties according to their wave function, but between the two wave functions directly. Now, if you look at it statistically, they seem to be the same thing, but they are not: just like in the double-slit experiment, you get "extra" effects compared to the statistical-particle-approach.
When a photon hits a regular lattice or a large molecule with many electrons bound to the lattice or molecule instead of particular electrons in it, the photon essentially interacts with all those electrons at once –– even though usually a single electron will change state due to the added energy. (Again, you could model this statistically assuming the photon interacts with a random electron, but things like inverse Compton scattering, where the photon gains energy and the electron(s) lose energy, and in general how the properties of the electron state change reflect the entire set of electrons and not that particular electron, indicates it is a simplification, and to capture the phenomena correctly, one must look at how the wavefunctions interact –– and not just how "collapsed wavefunctions" could interact.)
When two electrons interact, for example when you have two neutral hydrogen atoms approaching each other, the bound electrons do not interact as point-like particles: to model the interaction correctly, you must integrate the charge density according to the square of the wavefunction amplitudes –– as if you considered all possible electron-electron pairs over an empty universe except for the two, and calculated the overall probability density. However, the statistical interpretation is not exactly correct, because the end result will still act like a wavefunction in double-slit type experiments. In other words, such interaction does not cause a "wavefunction collapse".
Now, if you start asking "okay, exactly what does cause a wavefunction collapse", you get into the la-la land, into Wigner's friend the Ultimate Observer and such. We don't know, and we cannot know until we understand what the fuck the mathematical construct we call a wavefunction corresponds to in reality, and what wavefunction collapse is, if it is not just a mathematical construct.
Thing is, those of us who are only interested in applying these things to create interesting stuff (like quantum dots to LEDs, solar cells, transistors, et cetera), don't need to understand what; only how.
To some, this is extremely easy, and to others, extremely hard. It is like considering in mutually exclusive statements, and not rejecting any of them, but forming an opinion weighted by their instant probabilities from moment to moment, situation to situation. Easy to some, impossible for others.
Analogs and simplifications very often suffice to get stuff done, although one must understand they are just that, and not over-extend them; which is why the first thing anyone applying physical models to solve a problem should ask after getting some results is "does this make any sense?"
Indeed, in my opinion, true physics doesn't provide any human-scale/human-understandable/intuitive explanations of what or why at all, only how, and that via mathematical models; math being the most precise language to express such things in.
There is an aphorism, "Perfect is the enemy of good", reflecting that striving for perfection often prevents implementation of smaller improvements; and that since perfectness is rarely achievable, effort is wasted and improvements lost.
My own attitude towards physics is similar. I like philosophical ponderings at least as much as the next person (especially along the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation), but to me, they are human philosophy and not physics. When it comes to science and engineering, better modeling of the ways we can interact with the measurable reality is what matters to me; not which authority or Big Name you follow, or whose ideas you like best. Unfortunately, even physics discussions often devolve into just that, and in my opinion, it is a pure waste of time, when one could discuss how known physics could be utilized if we had enough energy and sufficiently high tech gadgets at hand.
As to the question in the title, the answer is that "according to the best current models of measurable reality, no; instant information transfer is not possible". Others have expanded on the details, but the key point is that everything we currently know about the properties of "wavefunction collapse" indicates it cannot transfer any information: you cannot "force" the collapse to occur in a specific way, so that another party measuring its entangled partner would make a specific measurement.
Think of it this way: you have a pair of (almost infinite-faced) magic dice, that you know will show the same faces next time they're thrown, and they can only be thrown that one time. You give one to someone moving far, far away. Can you use them to communicate anything? No, because you cannot even tell which one of you threw the dice first. You cannot tell if the other side has thrown the dice yet, because you need to throw it yourself to find out. You cannot "peek" at the face either, because that counts as a throw too. Everything we know thus far about such situations in physics says it is impossible to convey any message, not even a single bit, with such magic dice. Or entangled particles.
(Here, "throwing" corresponds to the wavefunction collapse between the entangled pair, and the face corresponds to the entangled physical measurable, like spin.)
But again, that is just an analog; the best one that I can construct based on the mathematical description of entanglement. So, you can poke holes in it, easy. To me, its purpose is to give a rough intuitive understanding of the limitations here, not a precise one, because the rough one suffices for purposes of making new interesting stuff. Researchers and scientists, you need to look at the math instead.