Recent content by adfreeman

There's something I don't understand regarding the subject we've been discussing. I heard quite a few times that if instant communication was possible using entangled particles, then this would also mean that we would able to send messages backwards in time. I don't understand how, so imagine...

:frown: I was fearing that answer. I already thought about it through the day, but didn't ask if an entangle swap would produce a random result because it was practically giving the whole idea away; so I thought it would be best to just check the whole thing with you. But that was just the new...

I kind of agree with you when you say that the question looks more philosophical than related to physics -though I always took it as a metaphor in this context-. What I find even more interesting is the possibility of our combined consciousness creating all this as we go. I would dare to go even...

Which, on second thought, wouldn't matter if you are unable to know from one if the other is still entangled That's what I was going to ask next... It wouldn't matter if you can't know from measuring one particle whether the other is still entangled or not.

But can you entangle and break the entanglement at will any time you wish?

Let me clarify all this even further; as when I re-read it looked a bit confusing... In essence you have two strings of entangled pairs: one for picking values, and the other for transmitting the information. For now forget about instant transmission faster than light; that's the second...

Until now I saw a relation between it all. But then I guess it's just because I'm looking at it from a layman's point of view. Ok. So, what if 2 entangled particles are still somehow connected, no matter how far away they are, as if they were a single system; and therefore, don't need to...

Before I get into that, can I ask a few questions more? I probably got this wrong, but I was thinking: It's said that if 2 entangled particles send information between them instantly -across vast distances for example- that would violate Einstein's relativity; as nothing can travel faster than...

As far as I know the phrase in bold is what the following paper was all about: "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" which I just found In Dr. Chinese's website (http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf)... cool! I think I'm going to visit that website a...

Sorry, should have posted all this at the beginning... The argument I was referring to between Bohr and Einstein was on whether or not we can measure the properties of a particle without disturbing it. Einstein said yes, therefore, metaphorically he liked to think that the moon is there when we...

You knocked half of the questions I had prepared, but I still keep the best for the last day: an instant communication system that works at any distance. :smile: Now I need to consult with my pillow... Thanks for sharing all this.

I really love the fact that you brought up these fascinating theories that non-scientists like me had no idea even existed; and I'm really looking forward to continue reading about them -kind of getting more than I can handle at the moment... And of course, thank you so much for answering this...

For some time now I’ve been intrigued by the famous argument between Bohr and Einstein, and which was apparently settled when Bell’s inequality was tested in various experiments carried out by Alain Aspect. After going around and around the whole issue for a while, I don’t think I’m convinced...

Thanks... That paper is exactly why I don't need to see the whole calculations. :smile: My maths are a bit rusty after just using enough to program computers along all these years. But anyway, I don't think I would understand them even if I had them fresh. For example: I only know what this "|...

Thanks for clearing that. I really don't need to see the QM calculations behind that formula; it's enough to know that it's not only derived from observation.