05 Mar 20
@humy saidSo saying QE is instantaneous is false just as I have been saying. I was right all along.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?
05 Mar 20
10 edits
@metal-brain saidNope; To any non-moron, saying speed of light isn't instantaneous isn't saying QE isn't instantaneous.
So saying QE is instantaneous is false just as I have been saying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
"...According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. ..."
we don't yet know if that above interpretation is correct but, it might be given it hasn't yet been proven false and, if it is correct, that still doesn't imply c is infinitely fast. There is no logical contradiction in having finite c and instant QE effect.
You haven't done anything to prove QE isn't instantaneous. We science experts keep an open mind and the scientific jury is still out on that one but, one thing is for sure, the ranting and raving of completely arrogantly delusional ignorant you will have absolutely no effect on any final verdict.
And none of us claimed or implied in any way that speed of light c is 'instantaneous' as in infinitely fast. Your straw man of saying we are saying c is instantaneous, which we clearly are not, convinces nobody here. In fact, it only convinces and proves to us all here you are being a complete moron.
05 Mar 20
3 edits
@athousandyoung saidI looked up a couple of articles about that.
The Chinese have a "quantum satellite" but I think the quantum entanglement only encrypts communications it doesn't transmit them.
Some years ago I read about adjustments made to circuit boards to counter a problem attributed to QM, and it was the first time I became aware of (and was surprised to see) a practical application. I wonder if Einstein, Podolski, Rosen, and Schrödinger (and his cat) thought there could ever be practical applications of QM.
06 Mar 20
@humy saidQE has never been proven to happen faster than the speed of light. You saying I havn't proven QE isn't instantaneous is like saying you havn't proven aliens from outer space didn't build the pyramids of Egypt.
Nope; To any non-moron, saying speed of light isn't instantaneous isn't saying QE isn't instantaneous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
"...According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. ..."
we don't yet know if that above interpretation is correct but, it might be given it hasn't yet been ...[text shortened]... es nobody here. In fact, it only convinces and proves to us all here you are being a complete moron.
06 Mar 20
16 edits
@metal-brain said--and that common interpretation of QE by many scientists that are much smarter than you and I and know many things about it you don't has also not been proven false.
QE has never been proven to happen faster than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
"...According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. ..."
We listen only to them, the experts, not an ignorant moron like you. If many say, like they actually do, that interpretation is at least currently credible, then we believe its credible (which is NOT the same as believing it necessarily must be true -preempting your next straw man), and we don't care whether YOU think its credible because we all know your ignorant opinion on it or anything to do with science accounts for absolutely nothing.
And, contrary to what you imply, saying QE effects happens faster than c isn't the same thing as saying c is infinitely fast, because that's just plain stupid. That's just your stupid idea, not ours, and your straw man. Nobody here has ever implied nor think c is infinitely fast and you have to be delusional to think otherwise.
Have you noticed your posts keep getting many thumbs down and never a thumbs up?
That contradicts your claim every one here agrees with your resent claim (that the interpretation that QE effects are instant must necessarily be wrong or is proven wrong); clearly nobody here agrees with your opinion on this.
You are clearly either just a perpetual liar or completely delusional with delusions of grandeur, don't know which, perhaps a mixture of both.
07 Mar 20
@humy said"According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly"
--and that common interpretation of QE by many scientists that are much smarter than you and I and know many things about it you don't has also not been proven false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
"...According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. ..."
We listen only to them, the experts, not ...[text shortened]... ar or completely delusional with delusions of grandeur, don't know which, perhaps a mixture of both.
Define instantly.
It isn't my fault people are misusing the word.
Is 100 light years instant? It takes 100 years for light to reach us from that far. Are you claiming that is instantaneous?
@metal-brain saidSo you cannot handle the common English word 'instantly'. Got that.
"According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly"
Define instantly.
Instantly means immediately as in within a period of time of zero length.
So your point is ...? nothing.
Is 100 light years instant?No, and nobody here as claimed/implied the contrary. Your stupid straw man.
It takes 100 years for light to reach us from that far. Are you claiming that is instantaneous?No. And nobody else here as claimed/implied this. Your stupid straw man. You convince nobody here.
07 Mar 20
@humy saidSo you cannot handle the obvious?
So you cannot handle the common English word 'instantly'. Got that.
Instantly means immediately as in within a period of time of zero length.
So your point is ...?
c is not instant. You have no evidence QE happens faster than the speed of light.
07 Mar 20
2 edits
@metal-brain said
c is not instant.
c is not instant.And neither I nor any of us science experts here said/implied it is instant. Your stupid straw man.
You have no evidence QE happens faster than the speed of light.And I don't need evidence for that claim because I never have made that claim and will not make that claim. I never said QE DOES happen faster than c. Your stupid straw man.
07 Mar 20
@humy saidYes you did. You said this:c is not instant.And neither I nor any of us science experts here said/implied it is instant. Your stupid straw man.You have no evidence QE happens faster than the speed of light.And I don't need evidence for that claim because I never have made that claim and will not make that claim. I never said QE DOES happen faster than c. Your stupid straw man.
"According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly"
You are lying again. Why do you lie so fargin much?
@metal-brain said
Yes you did. You said this:
"According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly"
You are lying again. Why do you lie so fargin much?
Yes you did.Did what?
Say c is instant?
Or that QE is faster than c?
I clearly said neither.
Or, if neither the above, what, exactly?
You said this:That is the quote from wiki when talking about QE.
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
So what? How does that wiki quote say/imply c is instant as in infinitely fast? It doesn't. That part of that wiki quote doesn't even mention c.
Or that QE IS faster than c? Wiki doesn't claim QE IS faster than c but merely states that interpretation, which is supported by some scientists but refuted by others and I have no personal opinion on whether that interpretation is correct. Wiki doesn't make the claim that that particular interpretation IS the correct one, because, as I already said, the scientific jury is still out on that one.
Here is the whole of that wiki quote in its actual context;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
"According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which don't recognize wavefunction collapse dispute that there is any "effect" at all. However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is IMpossible. " (my emphasis)
So it is very clear that neither that perfectly correct wiki quote nor merely stating the first part of that perfectly correct wiki quote, like I did, says or implies in any way either that c is instant or that QE IS faster than c.
Try again.
08 Mar 20
@wolfgang59 saidSo you are arguing something is less instant? Instant is instant. It is either instant or not instant. Distance makes no difference except perception.
Not as instant as 2 yards 6 inches.
@humy said"That is the quote from wiki when talking about QE."Yes you did.Did what?
Say c is instant?
Or that QE is faster than c?
I clearly said neither.
Or, if neither the above, what, exactly?You said this:That is the quote from wiki when talking about QE.
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
So what? How does that wiki ...[text shortened]... I did, says or implies in any way either that c is instant or that QE IS faster than c.
Try again.
The quote is wrong. That is what happens when you rely on wikipedia, but nobody is to blame for you quoting sources of info that are wrong but you.
You are embarrassing yourself.