Go back
time travel using entanglement

time travel using entanglement

Science

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
Clock
08 Mar 20
4 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
"That is the quote from wiki when talking about QE."

The quote is wrong.
Prove it.
I have learned enough about physics from university to happen to know that wiki quote must be correct.
You aren't a physics expert while in contrast those wiki quote was edited by physics experts.
Only a moron will take your ignorant word over it over that of the experts and none of us are morons so we all believe those experts are right about this and you are wrong; just as the experts all say, GPS DO take relativity equations into account.
All the other science weblinks imply the same thing i.e. there is no general disagreement in what the science says about this. They all say/imply GPS takes relativity equations into account.
You convince nobody here.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
Clock
08 Mar 20
Vote Up
Vote Down

Where would we be without a primary school-educated American showing all of the world's brightest physicists, climatologists and virologists wrong?

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22568
Clock
08 Mar 20

@humy said
Prove it.
I have learned enough about physics from university to happen to know that wiki quote must be correct.
You aren't a physics expert while in contrast those wiki quote was edited by physics experts.
Only a moron will take your ignorant word over it over that of the experts and none of us are morons so we all believe those experts are right about this and you are wron ...[text shortened]... ut this. They all say/imply GPS takes relativity equations into account.
You convince nobody here.
The following is a false statement:

" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."

You repeated the false claim without any source of info to back it up. We all know wikipedia is sometimes wrong. Wikipedia is not credible proof of anything. Futhermore, some interpretations are wrong.

You prove it.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22568
Clock
08 Mar 20

@humy said
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:
" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."
That is the quote from wiki when talking about QE.
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.
"but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is IMpossible."

Then it is not instantaneous. You already stated that. Why are you arguing to prove yourself wrong?

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
Clock
08 Mar 20
7 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
"but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is IMpossible."

Then it is not instantaneous. You already stated that.
Useful transmission of information can never be done instantaneous and that is what we and the science has been saying all the long. How is that the same as saying c is infinitely fast? It isn't. Your insistence that it does not only shows you don't understand the first thing about it but shows you cannot handle even the simplest most basic concepts of extremely simple logic let alone of science.
Why are you arguing to prove yourself wrong?
About what? Only you proved yourself wrong. Neither I nor any of the rest of us here ever claimed c is infinitely fast. So that's only your stupid straw man. I challenge you to show where I/we said/implied c is infinitely fast... -we all know why you won't.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22568
Clock
08 Mar 20

@humy said
Useful transmission of information can never be done instantaneous and that is what we and the science has been saying all the long. How is that the same as saying c is infinitely fast? It isn't. Your insistence that it does not only shows you don't understand the first thing about it but shows you cannot handle even the simplest most basic concepts of extremely simple logic let ...[text shortened]... I challenge you to show where I/we said/implied c is infinitely fast... -we all know why you won't.
The following is a false statement. The effect is NOT instantaneous. You repeated false information.

" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."

You repeated the false claim without any source of info to back it up. We all know wikipedia is sometimes wrong. Wikipedia is not credible proof of anything. Futhermore, some interpretations are wrong.

You are wrong. Stop repeating false info from wikipedia!

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
Clock
08 Mar 20
Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
The following is a false statement. The effect is NOT instantaneous. You repeated false information.

" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."

You repeated the false claim without any source of info to back it up. We all know wikipedia is sometimes wrong. Wikipedia is not credible proof of anything. Fu ...[text shortened]... hermore, some interpretations are wrong.

You are wrong. Stop repeating false info from wikipedia!
The effect is, as far as we can tell, instantaneous.

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
Clock
08 Mar 20
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
The following is a false statement. The effect is NOT instantaneous. You repeated false information.

" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."

You repeated the false claim without any source of info to back it up. We all know wikipedia is sometimes wrong. Wikipedia is not credible proof of anything. Fu ...[text shortened]... hermore, some interpretations are wrong.

You are wrong. Stop repeating false info from wikipedia!
The following is a false statement.
No, it is correct. That interpretation exists and is one of the commonest one if not the most common one amongst physicists than are much smarter than you or I and know much more about it than you or I. I at least have done just a few university courses in advanced physics and passed with reasonable grades thus know much more about it than you do albeit still a lot less than most physicists. You obviously have no physics credentials as shown by your constant BS claims.
The effect is NOT instantaneous.
And that wiki quote doesn't claim it is. It just states an interpretation; it doesn't say that interpretation is the correct one. Apparently you cannot read plain English.
Here it is again;

" According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly."

Where do you say the above says/implies QE effects DO actually occur instantly? It is clear to any non-moron that the above says " According to some interpretations ..." and not " According to the correct interpretations ..." and its not claiming any such thing.

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
Clock
08 Mar 20
3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@kazetnagorra said
The effect is, as far as we can tell, instantaneous.
or at least apparently so.
There are some interpretations of quantum mechanics that say that apparent instantaneousness is illusionary. Judging from all the comments about this I have seen from other physics experts on this, those interpretations seems to be a less common than the interpretations that imply that instantaneousness is for real i.e. NOT illusionary and there is no reason I am aware of to give those more common interpretations any less credence than those that say its illusionary. I have no personal opinion which is the correct interpretation but, one thing is sure, MB ignorant BS 'theories' on this account for nothing and wouldn't ever be given any credence by anyone and I would only listen to the experts and what the science says.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22568
Clock
08 Mar 20

@kazetnagorra said
The effect is, as far as we can tell, instantaneous.
What is your source of information?

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22568
Clock
08 Mar 20

@humy said
The following is a false statement.
No, it is correct. That interpretation exists and is one of the commonest one if not the most common one amongst physicists than are much smarter than you or I and know much more about it than you or I. I at least have done just a few university courses in advanced physics and passed with reasonable grades thus know much more ...[text shortened]... s ..." and not " According to the correct interpretations ..." and its not claiming any such thing.
" it doesn't say that interpretation is the correct one."

Nice of you to finally admit it.

wolfgang59
Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48794
Clock
08 Mar 20

@metal-brain said
So you are arguing something is less instant?
Your question was "Is 100 light years instant?"
Think about it.
Then you might understand my reply.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22568
Clock
09 Mar 20

@wolfgang59 said
Your question was "Is 100 light years instant?"
Think about it.
Then you might understand my reply.
I have thought about it. Have you?

wolfgang59
Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48794
Clock
09 Mar 20

@metal-brain said
I have thought about it. Have you?
Liar; you're not that dumb.

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
Clock
09 Mar 20
6 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
" it doesn't say that interpretation is the correct one."

Nice of you to finally admit it.
admit what? I never said/implied that was the correct interpretation, only that it was a currently perfectly credible one and one of the more common ones if not the most common amongst physicists that know a lot more about it than you and I. Your new stupid straw man?

-anyway, you have been shown to be wrong yet again.
Everyone here reading your moronic posts sees you as being just plain stupid.

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