[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Information teleported between two computer chips for the first time (Page 2 of 3)
Let's do a thought experiment!
Imagine your mother, wearing a clown suit and makeup, juggling chainsaws on fire? Can you see it? Ok, is it really a picture you can see clearly? Ok, now, where is it? "Of course it's happening in your head, Harry, but why on earth does that mean it's not real?" --Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, posthumously |
| Maybe I fail at understanding entanglement, but how exactly does one communicate with entangled particles? Measuring the spin on one results in the same spin being measured on the other, rather than the second particle being in a separate quantum state. But you would have no idea if you were the first to measure the spin without communicating by some other means to those measuring the other particle. What am I missing? |
|
Quoted:
Maybe I fail at understanding entanglement, but how exactly does one communicate with entangled particles? Measuring the spin on one results in the same spin being measured on the other, rather than the second particle being in a separate quantum state. But you would have no idea if you were the first to measure the spin without communicating by some other means to those measuring the other particle. What am I missing? |
|
Quoted:
Maybe I fail at understanding entanglement, but how exactly does one communicate with entangled particles? Measuring the spin on one results in the same spin being measured on the other, rather than the second particle being in a separate quantum state. But you would have no idea if you were the first to measure the spin without communicating by some other means to those measuring the other particle. What am I missing? |
|
Quoted:
Inducing a certain state causes the entangled to have the same state. This is the essence of communication. Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I fail at understanding entanglement, but how exactly does one communicate with entangled particles? Measuring the spin on one results in the same spin being measured on the other, rather than the second particle being in a separate quantum state. But you would have no idea if you were the first to measure the spin without communicating by some other means to those measuring the other particle. What am I missing? |
|
Quoted:
Sounds like Star Trek's sub-space radio. I always wondered how they could have real time communications hundreds of light years apart. I can see this being developed into a binary communications system. |
|
T Quoted: If they claim ftl, then I suspect error in measurement. It's happened before. |
|
I've been fapping over the idea of FTL communications via entanglement since I first learned about the idea in high school. I hope it becomes a real thing in my lifetime. If I were to invent/discover such a thing, I probably wouldn't tell anyone until I'd already had it up and running between New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and London long enough to become a billionaire many times over. |
|
Quoted:
Let's do a thought experiment!
Imagine your mother, wearing a clown suit and makeup, juggling chainsaws on fire? Can you see it? Ok, is it really a picture you can see clearly? Ok, now, where is it? "Of course it's happening in your head, Harry, but why on earth does that mean it's not real?" --Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, posthumously |
|
Quoted:
It exists in a meat / chemical matrix modern science doesn't have characterized fully at this point. Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's do a thought experiment!
Imagine your mother, wearing a clown suit and makeup, juggling chainsaws on fire? Can you see it? Ok, is it really a picture you can see clearly? Ok, now, where is it? "Of course it's happening in your head, Harry, but why on earth does that mean it's not real?" --Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, posthumously |
|
Quoted:
I was very careful to qualify information as not a physical thing, since obviously information is a thing. But Meta-physical things don't comply to the same categories as physical things. Physical things have a location in physical space. Physical things cannot be in two places at the same time. The number 7 exists, but where is it? Can you bring it to me, after which it will no longer be at the place from whence you brought it? These are logical category errors. The number 7 is real, but it does not have a location, because it is not a physical thing. It does not have mass, or speed limitations, or an entrophic course. The number 7 has always, will always, and will always forever exist at all times, in all places, simultaneously. Because it's not a physical thing, it is metaphysical. it's just a word. |
|
Quoted:
I've been fapping over the idea of FTL communications via entanglement since I first learned about the idea in high school. I hope it becomes a real thing in my lifetime. If I were to invent/discover such a thing, I probably wouldn't tell anyone until I'd already had it up and running between New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and London long enough to become a billionaire many times over. |
If they can affect instantaneous information state changes and measure those state changes at a physical level across huge dimensional space - it would sure make controlling robotic rovers on Mars easier... 
No more waiting 15 minutes to send a command and waiting 15 more minutes for an acknowledgement. |
|
Quoted: the number 7 isn't metaphysical--it is a symbol that we created in order to signify a concept that we created in an attempt to create a description of things. it's just a word. |
|
A joke to lighten the mood.
Can dogs count? Give two bones to three dogs and let's see.
Some things you are born knowing intrinsically. Every normal person, absent a developmental issue, is born knowing them. Learning to associate them with a symbol, so that you can mention something to someone else in reference to a thing you both have known always, is a separate issue. The symbols are not the information. They are only the medium, and mediums can change. The number 7 is one of those things. Everyone is born knowing how to count. When you say, "So-and-so cannot count". you generally don't mean he doesn't know how many things he has, and cannot tell when he has more or less of them. As if he had a number of Twinkies and you stole one, he wouldn't know. Or the same if you gave him more Twinkies. What you mean is he hasn't learned to associate particular numbers of things with the commonly accepted symbols in the language of his youth. He doesn't know that one thing for each finger on both hands is supposed to be called, "ten" in the English language. And that's not the same thing. |
|
We did not, and how could we have, if you give even a modicum of thought to the issue, "create" the concept of numbers of things. We did create a system of symbols by which we communicate the idea of particular numbers, to one another, abstractly, and by convention, that certain symbols mean certain things, which is what makes humans different. And that is all that logic is, the science of language. We agree that particular symbols, within particular contexts, whether those symbols be audible phonemes, or squiggles that also mean those audible phonemes, or anything else. What makes it logical is that the meanings don't change in the middle arbitrarily. That's another classical logical fallacy and a stock-in-trade of demofuck commies, and is splattered all over the MSM daily. The fallacy of equivocation. |
|
Quoted:
That's not correct. "Seven" and "7" are just symbols, but the thing they describe is a real metaphysical concept that does not have whereness. Quoted:
Quoted: the number 7 isn't metaphysical--it is a symbol that we created in order to signify a concept that we created in an attempt to create a description of things. it's just a word. also a human invention. |
|
We didn't "create" electrical theory, or quantum mechanics, or any other thing in that genre. Only God and I don't care how you define Him here, "creates" things. What we do is "discover" them and agree on a symbolic way to discuss them amongst ourselves to avoid confusion as best we can.
But, see, there's a problem.... |
|
Quoted:
quantity? also a human invention. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: the number 7 isn't metaphysical--it is a symbol that we created in order to signify a concept that we created in an attempt to create a description of things. it's just a word. also a human invention. |
|
Quoted:
I was very careful to qualify information as not a physical thing, since obviously information is a thing. But Meta-physical things don't comply to the same categories as physical things. Physical things have a location in physical space. Physical things cannot be in two places at the same time. The number 7 exists, but where is it? Can you bring it to me, after which it will no longer be at the place from whence you brought it? These are logical category errors. The number 7 is real, but it does not have a location, because it is not a physical thing. It does not have mass, or speed limitations, or an entrophic course. The number 7 has always, will always, and will always forever exist at all times, in all places, simultaneously. Because it's not a physical thing, it is metaphysical. Light might be the speed limit of most causality but probability is the speed limit of all reality. |
|
M Quoted: I look at it working as a demonstration on the power of probability on reality. Basically all that happens is when two entangled particles are both unknown spin, once you uncover the spin of one it dictates to a certainty the spin of the other. Light might be the speed limit of most causality but probability is the speed limit of all reality. |
|
Quoted:
MMan that sounds deep. Does it mean anything? Quoted:
M Quoted: I look at it working as a demonstration on the power of probability on reality. Basically all that happens is when two entangled particles are both unknown spin, once you uncover the spin of one it dictates to a certainty the spin of the other. Light might be the speed limit of most causality but probability is the speed limit of all reality. A real time convo with another galaxy would be pretty gangster. |
|
Quoted:
Inifnitely faster computing, encryption basically dead, beat all stock trades anywhere everywhere (high frequency trading)... Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm curious: How would you get rich with this? |
|
I Quoted: I think it means a lot. Imagine a little gizmo that you could communicate with someone/thing across ANY amount of space because the rule of probability is so strong. A real time convoy with another galaxy would be pretty gangster.
|