0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm sorry, but that link so so lame.
Quote from: opportunity on 08/03/2018 22:15:36I think this is another example of "stone-walling". Quantum entanglment appears to be a diirty word in this forum. Sad.How you get that out of my post is beyond me.
I think this is another example of "stone-walling". Quantum entanglment appears to be a diirty word in this forum. Sad.
It doesn’t matter what you say, the idea is to turn it around and make you appear you are wrong.
Quote from: Colin2BIt doesn’t matter what you say, the idea is to turn it around and make you appear you are wrong.Does that mean that "opportunity" is really "opportunistic"?
Quote from: opportunity on 08/03/2018 22:30:21I'm sorry, but that link so so lame.So why not address the other link? Moreover, how can a group of several quantum states send information faster than light if a single one cannot?I cannot find a single verified instance of faster-than-light information transfer using quantum entanglement. Even articles talking about quantum teleportation of particle states emphasize that no faster-than-light information transfer is taking place. Look at this, for example: https://www.inverse.com/article/34027-quantum-teleportation-entanglement-computing-internet-chinaSo if quantum computing or quantum teleportation cannot transmit information faster-than-light, then what phenomenon are you talking about that actually can do it?
I mean no one accepts QE is real....granted. How "can" QE be real in this forum, if its a "new theory"?
Why aren't we rapidly expanding, as people,, as a planet, as pixels on a golf ball exploding would?...the expectations are universally this is a universal phenomena faster than light......that's a tall order.
ask me how.
Quote from: opportunity on 10/03/2018 09:14:33I mean no one accepts QE is real....granted. How "can" QE be real in this forum, if its a "new theory"?QE is real. It is an essential part of how atomic level interactions take place. It has also been given a weird mysticism by those who do not understand it - and by a few who should know better.As has been explained, this is primarily an educational site and the main part of the forum is reserved for questions on current science. Please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0This post was moved because a post by puppypower was marked as best answer, this is seriously misleading for anyone reading through the thread.
Quote from: opportunity on 10/03/2018 09:14:33Why aren't we rapidly expanding, as people,, as a planet, as pixels on a golf ball exploding would?...the expectations are universally this is a universal phenomena faster than light......that's a tall order.Because that's not how the metric expansion of space works. The relative speed of expansion is measured as a function of distance between two objects. The further apart two objects are, the faster they seem to move relative to each other. This is because there is more space between distant objects than between nearby objects. If space was expanding by 1% per second per mile, then two objects 1 mile apart would be 1.01 miles from each other after 1 second, 1.0201 miles apart after 2 seconds and so on. But if the two objects were 1,000 miles apart, then they would be 1,010 miles apart after 1 second and 1,020.1 miles apart after 2 seconds. It's much faster. Because humans and even the Earth are so small compared to the Universe, the metric expansion of space on our scale is too small to be noticed.Quoteask me how.Okay, how? Describe how your proposed quantum information transfer method could be used to send information faster than light.
So, given direct quantum entanglement is not a way to transfer information, there are some who think that grouping QE events with chaos theory "might".I can't provide references, don't want to be hated, but the logic is there.
Quote from: opportunity on 12/03/2018 12:44:01So, given direct quantum entanglement is not a way to transfer information, there are some who think that grouping QE events with chaos theory "might".I can't provide references, don't want to be hated, but the logic is there.If you can't give us references or even explain the "logic", then how do you expect us to accept that?