1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    15 Feb '20 12:581 edit
    @metal-brain said
    I proved him wrong countless times and I just did it again.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-we-still-cant-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light/#40a237824d5d

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/#2e637d363a1e
    yet another one of your many stupid straw mans.
    I didn't claim it is possible to communicate faster than light and I was ALREADY well aware that, just as those two links explain, quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light and I said/implied nothing to the contrary.
    Thus neither link proves me 'wrong' about anything because I said/implied nothing to contradict what is said in those two links.
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    15 Feb '20 14:47
    @wolfgang59 said
    You mean by whom?

    Such phenomena (entanglements) were the subject of a 1935 paper
    by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, and several papers
    by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter, describing what came to be
    known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior
    to be impossible, as it violated the local realis ...[text shortened]... lement

    So that was in 1935 (later than I first suggested) but it was not proven until much later.
    The actual experiment was done by Alain Aspect.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect's_experiment
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Feb '20 23:01
    @deepthought said
    The actual experiment was done by Alain Aspect.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect's_experiment
    Did Erwin Schrödinger write an article predicting QE?
  4. Subscribermlb62
    mlb62
    Joined
    20 May '17
    Moves
    15781
    16 Feb '20 17:58
    Aspect's experiment-- OK I read the article but obviously didn't understand much. It mentioned light traveling with "information" or without "information" ..this is beyond my level of comprehension..can someone explain (in layman's terms) ? TY.
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    16 Feb '20 18:30
    @ogb said
    Aspect's experiment-- OK I read the article but obviously didn't understand much. It mentioned light traveling with "information" or without "information" ..this is beyond my level of comprehension..can someone explain (in layman's terms) ? TY.
    Don't accept it if it came from wikipedia. Wikipedia contains a lot of BS falsehoods. If Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon first theorized by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 where is a written article by him? I'll believe it when I see it.

    Anybody can post a wikipedia link. Here is one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    16 Feb '20 23:22
    @Metal-Brain
    Well then, if you say that Wiki piece is full of shyte, write up a paper and submit it to Nature or some physics mag. I would love to see that paper. I assume since you think Wiki is full of crap you know exactly WHERE it is full of crap and will waste no time showing us dullards WHY it is full of crap.
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    17 Feb '20 00:061 edit
    @metal-brain said
    If Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon first theorized by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 where is a written article by him?
    "Discussion of probability relations between separated systems". (1935)
    Bibcode:1935PCPS...31..555S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100013554.

    "Probability relations between separated systems". (1936)
    Bibcode:1936PCPS...32..446S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100019137
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    17 Feb '20 00:56
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    Well then, if you say that Wiki piece is full of shyte, write up a paper and submit it to Nature or some physics mag. I would love to see that paper. I assume since you think Wiki is full of crap you know exactly WHERE it is full of crap and will waste no time showing us dullards WHY it is full of crap.
    Fred Singer:

    Your Phobos alien conspiracy is still on wikipedia even though Singer NEVER proposed such nonsense. I posted an article by Fred Singer that proves he said Phobos was likely asteroid rubble and NOT hollow with aliens living in it.

    If apes could operate a computer they could rewrite the theory of evolution. Wikipedia is BS.
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    17 Feb '20 20:11
    @metal-brain said
    Wikipedia is BS.
    If you had a copy of Hamlet with a typo would you say Shakespeare was BS?
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    17 Feb '20 20:46
    @Metal-Brain

    YOU mentioned Singer. I said you should write up a paper showing Wiki articles as BS like those dealing with TD and the like.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    18 Feb '20 03:14
    @ogb said
    Since quantum entanglement affects two distance particles instantaneously, will that play a part in allowing time travel for humans?
    Group of protesters heard chanting outside a physics research lab:

    ”What do we want”....”Time Travel”

    ”When do we want it”....”Irrelevant”
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    19 Feb '20 07:46
    @metal-brain said
    Did Erwin Schrödinger write an article predicting QE?
    The Schrödinger equation itself predicts quantum entanglement.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    19 Feb '20 16:07
    @KazetNagorra

    Can you go into that and show where the equations themselves predict entanglement?
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    20 Feb '20 15:37
    @sonhouse said
    @KazetNagorra

    Can you go into that and show where the equations themselves predict entanglement?
    If you write down the Schrödinger equation for any number of particles greater than one, then they are entangled if the many-body wave function cannot be written as a product state of single-particle wave functions. It is a relatively elementary exercise to come up with such states; they are the rule rather than the exception.
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    20 Feb '20 17:07
    @KazetNagorra
    So is it easier to be in a superpositional state if the number is 2 V 3 or 4?
    I saw work showing entanglements of as many as 5 particles.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree