So what you still have to have something at each end... With distance there is time, with time differential there is loss of coherency, without coherency and Rx and TX at both ends there's no communications...

---

Never engage stupid people at their level, they then have the home court advantage.....

... So explain to me this thing about being in two places at the same time then, and does the two slit experiment in ave particle duality have anything to do with it?

"Particles" is a misnomer...

A better reality is to consider energy oscillation that is best described by a 'probability of an interaction being seen as resolving a particle'.

Similarly, the Young's slits experiment is nicely described if you assume a wave packet rather than a particle. With a 'packet' you can have the packet exhibit interference with itself for a singular packet.


All good spooky stuff, especially when you see the vibrating oil analogues showing "quantum-like" effects but at a very much larger scale that can be seen with the unaided eye. Very non-intuitive!


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

OK, I can understand that quite well. That is equivalent to tossing a coin and seeing if you get heads or tails. It will have a probability of being either a head or a tail, but you won't know what it will be until it lands and you observe it.

Ahem... slightly off topic I know so apologies... but twice I have tossed a coin and have got neither heads nor tails. They landed upright on their edge. I did toss another coin on another occasion once, and got neither heads nor tails too... but that was because it fell through a crack in the floorboards never to be seen again...

In fact, I often get interesting results when throwing things... do you think it's because I'm a girl...? :)

To send a message in binary and Quantum format you would first have to order and mark a long string of pennies. Then you would have to order and mark their virtual quantum twins in a remote place in the same way. Next you would have to turn over the local pennies in the right pattern to represent your message. The message at the other end would not be instantaneous since you cannot enter the original message at faster than light speed.

So: I am still awaiting an explanation of how information can be transmitted faster than light if it exceeds one bit.

In fact, I often get interesting results when throwing things... do you think it's because I'm a girl...? :)

Could well be Annie:) I also get real interesting results myself. Depends on what you throw and the size of it of course:))

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

So: I am still awaiting an explanation of how information can be transmitted faster than light if it exceeds one bit.

It can't. All you can do is both measure the same entangled system at the same time and know what the other party sees. This is not communication.

Let's say I'm going on a sub-FTL trip of many light years. I take with me a pseudo-random number generator that has an exact copy back home. At an agreed upon time I read the first number that the generator calculates. Back home they do the same thing. Even if I am many light years away I know what has happened back home the instant it happens. But I can't communicate that way.

Entanglement works the same way. We can both see the same collapsed state but neither one of us can control it. We can't even know if the other party has measured the entangled system. There is no way to send information.

There is no way to send information.

That's what I say as well.

Okay... so... I'm going to have a go at downloading that pdf file now the clunking has eased off :) Will give me something to do when I can't sleep and we're locked out of seti for the next couple of days... *breathe in and out of paper bag*

If... when we come back... there is something vaguely human shuffling about the place making odd noises with its dribble... please be kind to it... it will be mostly harmless :)

Could well be Annie:) I also get real interesting results myself. Depends on what you throw and the size of it of course:))

Pity us blokes can't do the Qantum thing and dissapear when those objects come flying through the air at us ....:)

guess that's why sport is so inportant to us blokes it teaches us how to DUCK :)

make shore you loaded up the client with a couple of days supply of units before tonight's black out

---

... Entanglement works the same way. We can both see the same collapsed state but neither one of us can control it. We can't even know if the other party has measured the entangled system. There is no way to send information.

I favour the idea of complimentary "hidden state" that is not resolved until one or both entangled 'particles' are destroyed in the interaction of measuring them.

Note that they have to be entangled and then transported undisturbed...

No spooky action at a distance needed. Just a localized case of preordained for a special set of circumstances.


All such an entangled web to be woven...

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Three quantum paradoxes illustrated with candy

---

Reality Internet Personality

Sorry don't buy any of those three supposed explanations. Faster than light eh? OK .... The point here is that everyone refers to it as "Quantum Theory" and that is what it is. Nothing has been proved, it is a theory.

Have a sweet :) it'll confuse things even more...

Never understood Schroedinger - try put a cat in a box that doesn't want to go in a box and you'll end up bleeding all over the box. As for a cat already happily settled in a box - any passing cat will KNOW there is a cat in the box... so why didn't he?

edit: I still love quantum theory though! It's like those wiggly teeth you get as a child - painful but pleasurable and you miss them when they're gone :)

Sorry don't buy any of those three supposed explanations. Faster than light eh? OK .... The point here is that everyone refers to it as "Quantum Theory" and that is what it is. Nothing has been proved, it is a theory.

No, the Bell inequalities have been proven by Alain Aspect in experiments.
Tullio

---

Sorry don't buy any of those three supposed explanations. Faster than light eh? OK .... The point here is that everyone refers to it as "Quantum Theory" and that is what it is. Nothing has been proved, it is a theory.

Yet they are building solid state devices based on it.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Many years ago, after a very personal experience, I was hit by the idea that our brain is a macroscopic quantum object. Of course I did not tell anybody about this idea but when I read a book by Roger Penrose, "The emperor's new mind" I was bold enough to send him a text I had written in 1980 just for myself which summarized my ideas. He answered me in a week with a very kind letter and suggested me to read his new book "Shadows of the mind", developing the same ideas.
I suggest that you read those books and also one very close to the ideas of Penrose and mine, "Disturbing the universe", by Freeman J.Dyson, one of the fathers of quantum electrodynamics. The books speaks of his companionship with Richard Feynman, who developed a new approach to quantum mechanics and suggested the possibility of building a quantum computer, an idea also treated by Penrose.
Quantum mechanics is based on the idea of probability, and this is why Einstein refused it. But probability implies the existence of a mind, especially in the subjective approach by Bruno de Finetti, a great mathematician.
So quantum mechanics is still an open subject and we haven't exploited all its possibilities.
Tullio

---

I know that fuzzy logic is used in my Yashica camera to focus on the subject. It works well except in the case of fog, which defies even fuzzy logic.
Tullio

---

Here I am, Chris :) I don't like probability! *scowl* I defy probababilility...

Did that help? :)

Um... but I do like quantum theory... specially when I close my eyes during the probability stuff.

That's fuzzy logic :)

There! :)

Perhaps I should explain... take umbrella's for instance - then throw them away :) (anniet! Seriously now!)
Ahem... As I was saying... Umbrella's...
Lets leave aside the probability (or not) of having this device with you when it rains...
and the probability (or not) that conditions are conducive to it converting itself into your own personal lightning conductor...
or for having to immediately wrestle with the wretched thing anywhere near a bin you need to subsequently stuff it in...

If we consider the ones that bruise/pinch your thumb as you slide the mechanism up the shaft to lock it in an unfurled position above your head. (stand back I'm about to try science) ...The probability that early in it's life it entangles itself at the macro-quantum level in all areas simultaneously (instantaneously mirrored in other such devices at a distance which you later come across in your travels) and still manages to pelt my head with several cat toys is almost always 1...

And if we consider the ones with the little button that you press to make them open all by themselves...
The probability that these will spontaneously open perfectly (inside my house) at least twice over the course of a week is again almost always 1...
The probability that they will do just as an emphatic job when needed to outdoors (and not take my eye out as they do so) varies considerably...
but the probability that by my fourth attempt to use one outdoors, I will launch the canopy a hundred feet into the air and be left walking down the road in the pouring rain just holding the shaft is ALWAYS 1... The probability that I did so anonymously in fog however, is 0.

This could of course be attributed to the fact that, at any given time of the day or night (either at the macro or quantum level) I might have a screw that's probably loose somewhere... but I would conclude that probability is probably relative to the person experiencing the probabibility ;} which is probably why Einstein didn't like it either - I mean... you just have to look at his hair. He probably experienced a few too many of what he thought were probably improbable events (with a probability at or near zero) that turned out to have an absolute probability of 1, poor thing :)

Anyway... do hope that brought everyone down to earth! :)

full theory available in the format of a 3000 page pdf file :)

Well I did ask didn't I :-)))

The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood — and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance to the theory of indeterminacy.

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sorts of parties.

Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up after a particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning in this way: If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual impossibility, it must have finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one is to work out how exactly improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea... and turn it on!

:)))))) but I heard it all fell apart when a bit of a biscuit fell in it... *big wide eyes* I was nowhere near it at the time... I just sort of heard it as I... um jogged rapidly away.

Fatti non fosti a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza (Dante)
Tullio
(You were not made to live like brutes but to follow virtue and knowledge)

---

ok Tullio after this puter gave me a little grief , Dam advertisers loading crap on my machine .

I finally was able to translate what you said , wise words

---