On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:19:19AM +0200, Bastiani Fortress wrote: > As i can remember, the point was when two particles are entangled, > they bear the same quantum state, and they simultaneously shift > their states önce either of them is "observed".
And if you 'observe' at the other side, you can determine that the first side was already observed. Apparently. Which is 1 bit (perhaps 1/2 a bit) of data transfer. If this is not the case, then the descriptions on this list so far are ambiguous to the point of not being interpretable... which would be unfortunate. I think someone's gonna have to try explaining again.. > So you know that the other twin is in the same state, but you > cannot code it at will, and since you don't know its first state > without having "observed" it, you cannot determine whether the > other twin has been observed or not (that would be 1 bit of data > streaming). This is what i remember from what i read years ago, > please correct me if i'm wrong. > > 5:11 AM, August 5, 2016, juan <juan....@gmail.com>: > > On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:29:07 +1000 > Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:58:11PM +0000, jim bell wrote: > > From: juan <juan....@gmail.com> > > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC) > > jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then some > > > information must be being transmitted. If no information is > > > being transmitted, then by definition, there's no way to > > > measure > > > speed and the claim makes no sense. > > Well, that's the problem. Knowing that SOMETHING is being > > transmitted, and actuallyUSING that method to transmit useful > > information, are (quite strangely) two differentthings. That, also > > is the amazing implications of entangled photons. > It does sound like the obvious is being missed - so entangled photon > paris can be created, and we can know at one end, if the photon at the > other end is "read", and this apparently happens at at a minimum of > 10k.c; > Surely, one could simply create a suitably large number of entangled > photon pairs, as an array, and then read them, or not read them, at > the end you want to "send" information from, and "detect" (so this > weird quantum mechanics story goes) those reads at the other end. > Read + Not read = 1 bit. > What seems to be implied in the stories so far is that the information > must be transmitted through changing states of a single entangled > photon > - which assumption makes no sense at all. There's a purported > phenomena, use it! > > Yep. It either works or not. And if it works you should be able > to get some 'macroscopic' result/data transmission (of course > the micro/macro divide is just pseudo-scientific, absurd > bullshit) > I don't know if it works or not, though I notice that Cari > posted a source claiming > "Everyone agrees that quantum entanglement does not allow > information to be transmitted faster that light. " > I take that to mean that the authorities don't actually agree, > although perhaps the majority says : no. > Regardless, if there is something propagates at faster than > light speed, then it should be possible to send information > using that AND there would be nothing absurd about that, > contrary to Jim B's abssurd defense of absurd, pseudo > cientific 'interpretations'. > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t > "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue" > It should be self-evident that absurdities have no place in > science or even in philosophy. > > What are we missing here? > > -- > You’re not from the Castle, you’re not from the village, you are nothing. > Unfortunately, though, you are something, a > stranger. -- Free Australia: www.UPMART.org Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.