[Petrochemicals]

It is impossible, but so was the splitting of the atom, flight, etc.

The difference is that there are no laws of physics preventing nuclear fission or flight.

Yes but the law is an ass. I believe the way this is got round in siency circles is an "addition". It would be quite easily to add an addition.

[Origin]

I believe the way this is got round in siency circles is an "addition". It would be quite easily to add an addition.

Don't you know that every rational scientist over the past 3 or 4 hundred years knew that heavier than air flight was possible. 

[Kryptid]

Yes but the law is an ass.

Can you elaborate?

I believe the way this is got round in siency circles is an "addition". It would be quite easily to add an addition.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

To be clear, faster-than-light communication technically isn't forbidden by relativity. It just has troublesome consequences if it happens (causality violation). In either case, you can't do it with quantum entanglement because quantum entanglement doesn't work that way.

[paul cotter]

An addition, Petro?. I say no, you are in error. What you really need is a subtraction. Subtract all these irritating laws like COE and COM, thermodynamics etc and you are good to go.

[Petrochemicals]

I believe the way this is got round in siency circles is an "addition". It would be quite easily to add an addition.

Don't you know that every rational scientist over the past 3 or 4 hundred years knew that heavier than air flight was possible. 

Do you mean 'correct'?

[Petrochemicals]

Yes but the law is an ass.

Can you elaborate?

I believe the way this is got round in siency circles is an "addition". It would be quite easily to add an addition.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

To be clear, faster-than-light communication technically isn't forbidden by relativity. It just has troublesome consequences if it happens (causality violation). In either case, you can't do it with quantum entanglement because quantum entanglement doesn't work that way.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-law-is-an-ass.html

And yes. Here comes string theory.

[Origin]

Do you mean 'correct'?

No.

[Kryptid]

What does any of this have to do with string theory?

[yor_on]

No, it's not possible

[Zer0]

No, it's not possible

Not as yet.
(MayBee)

[Origin]

Not as yet.

If you have been following the conversation you'll see that because of the inherent random nature of entanglement it is not possible to use it to send information.

[Kryptid]

Let's say you know that I have two socks, one green and one red. I send you a box with one of the socks in it. You don't know which one it is until you open it. As soon as you do, you see that it is the red sock. You can then deduce, instantly, I must have the green sock. Although you acquired this knowledge without delay, you can't use a system of sending red and green socks by mail to communicate faster than light. Quantum entanglement is similar.

[Petrochemicals]

.
The conspiritor and their particles  would however would be privvy to information that would take another year to reach them. They could not have travelled 2 light years from their start point in 1 year.  This would suggest it is impossible.

However if you count the communication with transported particles to be allowed under the light speed limit, this would indeed let you communicate over the entirety of the universe(s) instantaneously, you would just need to meet another entangled particle carrier.

Perhaps though the velocity you transport a particle at affects it and it may slow down or affect other parties in some way.

What does any of this have to do with string theory?

It's a theory on a theory, just as newton was before Einstein or people who believed that atom could not be split, as I said the alchemists showed them, or that a nuclear bomb would require several tonnes on uranium.

Do you mean 'correct'?

No.

Oh.

[Origin]

However if you count the communication with transported particles to be allowed under the light speed limit, this would indeed let you communicate over the entirety of the universe(s) instantaneously, you would just need to meet another entangled particle carrier.

No you couldn't.  There is no way to communicate information with 2 entangled particles.  This has been explained in the thread.

Perhaps though the velocity you transport a particle at affects it and it may slow down or affect other parties in some way.

No that makes no difference.

[Zer0]

@Anybody interested in discussing this Topic further?

[Origin]

@Anybody interested in discussing this Topic further?

Sure.

[Zer0]

@Anybody interested in discussing this Topic further?

Sure.

Great!
: )

Well, let's first Establish a Factual point...
Quantum Entanglement can NOT transfer Information Faster than the Speed of Light in a Vacuum.
Agreed?

& then can we Please discuss Q.E. further by choosing the Left/Right socks Analogy?
That way, it will be Alot easier for me to grasp the Concept in depth & details.

[Origin]

Well, let's first Establish a Factual point...
Quantum Entanglement can NOT transfer Information Faster than the Speed of Light in a Vacuum.
Agreed?

I would be more comfortable saying "entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication."

& then can we Please discuss Q.E. further by choosing the Left/Right socks Analogy?
That way, it will be Alot easier for me to grasp the Concept in depth & details.

Sure.

[Halc]

.
Quantum Entanglement can NOT transfer Information Faster than the Speed of Light in a Vacuum.
Agreed?

Origin gave a better wording of this statement. There are non-local interpretations that posit faster than light causation in entanglement situations, but none of them suggest that this can be used to transfer information faster than c.

then can we Please discuss Q.E. further by choosing the Left/Right socks Analogy?

Socks tend to not come in left and right, but gloves do. So entanglement is a little like wrapping a pair of gloves in two packages and one goes to Mars. Once there, either person can open the package he has and instantly know the contents of the other no matter how far away. Nothing physical changes, and the mechanism cannot be used to send a message.

The analogy ends there. A glove in a box is a classical object in a classical state of being left or right, and the package only serves to prevent knowledge of this classical state until opened. In quantum mechanics, the particle-pair is not classical, but in superposition of being in either state (let's say spin up/down). One can perform an experiment on either particle to demonstrate this superposition state, all without actually measuring its spin. That can't be done with the gloves.

[paul cotter]

That's interesting, Halc. How would one go about demonstrating that such a particle is in a state of superposition?