time travel using entanglement

@humy said
It was implied by the context. You are STILL pointlessly arguing the toss over pointless semantics and making no point.

He didn't say that. False quote.

@metal-brain said
He didn't say that.

So you apparently cannot handle the word "implied".

@humy said
I am not an expert on that but, if I understand it correctly, I think the answer is yes although you may make it a better question if you replace the word "action" above with "states" and replace "synchronized" with something like "locked together in terms of what states they will end up being in from a single future interaction with the external world just at the moment they will cease to be entangled".

That's interesting, because I assumed the answer would be no.

In a previous post I wrote:

Two entangled particles behave as though they are side by side and physically connected. It's like you turning the door knob of your front door, and as you do so the door knob on the house across the street turns, as though the two are physically connected. The effect is instantaneous...

In another post DT said:

There isn't a really satisfactory interpretation of this. The Copenhagen Interpretation deals with this by claiming there is no contradiction since correlation does not, of itself, entail causation.

If my analogy of two door knobs is correct (more or less) then I am an influencer of one of those door knobs. The door knob across the street turns as the one I'm touching turns, but there is nothing (in terms of causality) to explain why that one is turning. An apparent problem (or appearance of a problem) with causality is avoided because correlation does not entail causation.

Does this mean causality is off the table? Or is it a piece of the puzzle that doesn't (for now) seem to fit anywhere, so it sits off to the side waiting for other parts of the puzzle to fill in.

@lemon-lime said
Okay, so how about this crazy idea...

When two particles become entangled ( "after a time of mutual influence" ) do they become synchronized, so that the action of one will always match the action of the other?
( no need for causality )

Conservation laws determine the correlations, which determines in what sense measurements will "match."

@humy said
So you apparently cannot handle the word "implied".

I can handle the word fine if it is used correctly. You are using it incorrectly.

@metal-brain said
Lemon lime did not say "as if".

Nothing is instantaneous.

Nothing is instantaneous

For what it's worth, the no-communication theorm seems to agree.

The no-communication theorem gives conditions under which such transfer of information between two observers is impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

By the way, it's useful to note that "as if" and "as though" do not mean "is" (instantaneous). No claim of instantaneous communication is actually being made.

@lemon-lime said

By the way, it's useful to note that "as if" and "as though" do not mean "is" (instantaneous). No claim of instantaneous communication is actually being made.

So it is clear you NEVER said/implied quantum entanglement can be used for instantaneous communication, nor anything very similar to that effect.
That's exactly what I strongly suspected all along here; Straw man words have been put in your mouth you never actually said.
I am afraid we ALL get that a lot around here from you know who.

@humy said
So it is clear you NEVER said/implied quantum entanglement can be used for instantaneous communication, nor anything very similar to that effect.
That's exactly what I strongly suspected all along here; Straw man words have been put in your mouth you never actually said.
I am afraid we ALL get that a lot around here from you know who.

"So it is clear you NEVER said/implied quantum entanglement can be used for instantaneous communication"

True, but I've also been speculating (spit balling) over possible conditions under which instantaneous communication might be happening.
Most of that is filed under the heading "Crazy Ideas", and kept safely out of view under my 🎩

@lemon-lime said
"So it is clear you NEVER said/implied quantum entanglement can be used for instantaneous communication"

True, but I've also been speculating (spit balling) over possible conditions under which instantaneous communication might be happening.
Most of that is filed under the heading "Crazy Ideas", and kept safely out of view under my 🎩

We can't select the outcome of the measurement, heads or tails come up with equal probability. If we could select the outcome of the measurement at one end then we would have an instant communication device.

@lemon-lime said

Nothing is instantaneous

For what it's worth, the no-communication theorm seems to agree.

The no-communication theorem gives conditions under which such transfer of information between two observers is impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

By the way, it's useful to note that "as if" and "as though" do not mean "is" (instantaneous). No claim of instantaneous communication is actually being made.

"By the way, it's useful to note that "as if" and "as though" do not mean "is" (instantaneous). No claim of instantaneous communication is actually being made."

Who said "as if" and "as though" and in what context? People seem to believe you wrote things you did not. I think the problem is that some people think the speed of light is instantaneous. We both know it is not. Light can take millions of years to get here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year

@deepthought said
We can't select the outcome of the measurement, heads or tails come up with equal probability. If we could select the outcome of the measurement at one end then we would have an instant communication device.

An instant communication device?
When humy said "can be used for" I assumed he didn't mean it could literally be used.

But at one time I did wonder if some very simple form of communication might be possible.

@metal-brain said
"By the way, it's useful to note that "as if" and "as though" do not mean "is" (instantaneous). No claim of instantaneous communication is actually being made."

Who said "as if" and "as though" and in what context? People seem to believe you wrote things you did not. I think the problem is that some people think the speed of light is instantaneous. We both know it is not. Light can take millions of years to get here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year

There is very little difference in what we said. DT said "it is as if a signal has been sent instantaneously" and I said as though the two (door knobs) are physically connected, which is an indirect way of saying instantaneous. His way of saying it was more direct, although I did say the effect is instantaneous.

I'm frankly surprised no one here is telling me I'm full of... uh, pudding.
And no one is claiming I've said something I didn't say... well, so far as I know.
They could be laughing at me behind (or in front of) my back, but I don't think so. 😐

@metal-brain said
"By the way, it's useful to note that "as if" and "as though" do not mean "is" (instantaneous). No claim of instantaneous communication is actually being made."

Who said "as if" and "as though" and in what context? People seem to believe you wrote things you did not. I think the problem is that some people think the speed of light is instantaneous. We both know it is not. Light can take millions of years to get here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year

People seem to believe you wrote things you did not.

No, just you.

I think the problem is that some people think the speed of light is instantaneous.

Really? Example? Certainly nobody HERE thinks speed of light is 'instantaneous' as in infinitely fast and nobody here has indicated otherwise. Your new straw man?

@lemon-lime said
An instant communication device?
When humy said "can be used for" I assumed he didn't mean it could literally be used.

But at one time I did wonder if some very simple form of communication might be possible.

The Chinese have a "quantum satellite" but I think the quantum entanglement only encrypts communications it doesn't transmit them.