Recent content by LozD

I might well do, but it's a big ask. Keeping up with my day job tech and dev is tough enough. Thanks for your input PeroK, and all others who chipped in. Did y'all read about the tardigrade? How does an entire critter become entangled with a qubit? Bet the quantum maths and physicals around...

Damn, there's a confusing typo. Where I said ... Now it might be said (someone did on this thread) that the entanglement collapse will only happen for the Spin, not the Velocity. So the spin will remain |v> = 99% |11> + 1% |00> as it was originally prepared and not revert to |v> = 50% |11> +...

🤣🤣🤣

Now, here I'm introducing another degree of freedom (my aka "property") of the particle: velocity. And that's entangled between the two particles too ... Again I've shown the local value boxes greyed out to signify the value is not really there but rather in the shared place above, attendant...

That's a very cool "deeper dive", so-to-speak, explanation of the quantum phenomenon as described in a the shallower manner in the Quanta Magazine article - thank you! It also helps me frame my question yet again, hopefully slightly more accurately than even the last attempt. This is rather...

🤣🤣🤣 LM rocks! Yes, that's it exactly! My poor usage of terminology confused everyone. So my question is: why is LM not QM? What am I doing wrong in the LM? Now that I've cleared up my confused attempt to pose a thought experiment and been understood, what specifically is actually wrong in...

For the shear brilliance of the name "Sneaking a Look at God's Cards" my order is on its way!

When the entanglement collapses, I wonder what the speed of action is between the measured property that triggers the collapse and the other different properties with the same state (answerer's 4 above) to reset them - like if x-spin is measured how long does it take for y-spin to register that...

OK, the maths in that link I don't fully get, but the gist of the text description around it I have some inkling I think. The answerer's answer to 1. acknowledges that you can "shape" (my terminology, sorry!) the probabilities on the particles and retain the entanglement. So 75/25% instead of...

Your mistake is to think that the probabilities change by knowing that another measurement has been made, without knowing the outcome. I'm not saying the probabilities change by knowing that another measurement has changed. I'm saying that the probability on, say, the x-axis spin change when...

But we don't care about the results of B's measurement. We only care that its has been measured or not. Whenever I refer to measuring at one end or the other I am assuming that that action is measuring the shared state. There is no local state if they are entangled, I get that, I misled you...

To be honest, the B initial B state doesn't matter. That was an unnecessary constraint I applied. B can just be 50% with no preparing. All that's needed is for A to be able to be shaped to something that isn't 50%. Does that make for an entanglement now then, with only A "nudged"?

Aha, now you're talkin'! OK, my supposition that the probabilities could be set across two properties of the state in preparing the entanglement might be an issue. I think this more technical / mathematical discussion might be the same thing. From skim reading it, it appears the "correct"...

According to the following paragraphs from the links I gave, they appear to contradict you - see my bold ... Wiki link: - Whatever axis their spins are measured along, they are always found to be opposite. In quantum mechanics, the x-spin and z-spin are "incompatible observables", meaning the...

Quite so, it's not a message. It's not on that B "channel" that the message is really being sent. The B state is merely there for Y to "measure or not at midnight" (or whatever time) and make the first "read" of this connected system. It doesn't matter what value is discovered on B by Y, it's...