-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Electrons do not spin!
- Thread starter Sparhafoc
- Start date
Still need to watch it saw it last night.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Excellent. Very approachable and not at all misleading.
Deeply frustrating as its exposed ignorance of an entire body of knowledge I wish I'd been aware of. I've been trying for years to explain what turns out to be the concept of decoherence; something I expect people learned in physics would consider pretty basic.
But also fucking fantastic as I've got a whole new way of thinking about it, expressed in new ways, connected better to other ideas that I'd imagined but was not really able to transmit successfully into words.
The collapse of the wave function is an illusion; the wave function continues forever.
ETA: By observing the wave function, you don't collapse it, you become entangled with it
I need to think about this tomorrow, so I've left myself a note!
ETA: By observing the wave function, you don't collapse it, you become entangled with it
I need to think about this tomorrow, so I've left myself a note!
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I have, but I'm drunk and tired, and I haven't knocked all the corners off it yet.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
a few years ago I spoke to a astronomer about using entanglement for space comms but he wasn't convinced about entanglement at the time.
Basically, current radio-based communication systems mean there's an ever-growing lag between Earth and probes we send out to the farthest reaches of space - or, at least, our solar system.
Equally, if we ever build a base on Mars, there'll be a lag - not to mention how the Sun will interfere with communications when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the Sun.
Entanglement would solve both, resulting in secure, instant communications-- also important for military usage.
You'd entangle two particles, A and A-dash, put them in two communications systems - one on Earth, the other in a space ship or probe - and that should allow communications without interference by the Sun's or other radiation.
One could also - to ensure parity - create two other entangled particles (one in each system), B and B-dash, so that B takes on a state relative to A-dash, and B-dash takes no a state relative to A, thus confirming data sent between A and B..
A and B-dash are in one system, B and A-dash are in the other.
Does this make sense?
Kindest regards,
James
a few years ago I spoke to a astronomer about using entanglement for space comms but he wasn't convinced about entanglement at the time.
Basically, current radio-based communication systems mean there's an ever-growing lag between Earth and probes we send out to the farthest reaches of space - or, at least, our solar system.
Equally, if we ever build a base on Mars, there'll be a lag - not to mention how the Sun will interfere with communications when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the Sun.
Entanglement would solve both, resulting in secure, instant communications-- also important for military usage.
You'd entangle two particles, A and A-dash, put them in two communications systems - one on Earth, the other in a space ship or probe - and that should allow communications without interference by the Sun's or other radiation.
One could also - to ensure parity - create two other entangled particles (one in each system), B and B-dash, so that B takes on a state relative to A-dash, and B-dash takes no a state relative to A, thus confirming data sent between A and B..
A and B-dash are in one system, B and A-dash are in the other.
Does this make sense?
Kindest regards,
James
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I've danced around it but never tackled it head-on. I have plans.
That's just the problem - it does make sense, but from what I understand, it's not actually possible.
But I still don't quite understand it, which is why I need a brain that is not currently attempting to think about this at 2:45am.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
That's with a single pair - normally, scientists testing this on Earth phone each other to compare results to make sure they're the same at both ends.
That's why I suggest using two pairs of entangled particles - the second pair corroborates the first pair's states, thus doing the work of the phone call.
Kindest regards,
James
That's with a single pair - normally, scientists testing this on Earth phone each other to compare results to make sure they're the same at both ends.
That's why I suggest using two pairs of entangled particles - the second pair corroborates the first pair's states, thus doing the work of the phone call.
Kindest regards,
James
I don't know how the second pair could corroborate the state of the first pair, because then they'd need to have already collapsed the wave function, meaning the first pair were no longer in superposition, no?
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
There are two issues with the article, as I see it.
Firstly, as per your quote from it, rather than having to return to Earth to find out that the string of states for both Alice and Bob are the same, why not assume that they are as intended? Bob simply accepts the sequence of states as if intentionally sent by Alice. You might say that they'll just be random "noise" - initially, yes but at some point a pattern will emerge, a "signal", when Alice is actually sending a message.
Secondly, the author deals with a set state for Alice's particle, and a undetermined state for Bob's. What if both were undetermined or the same or the opposite? Would this solve the problem?
As regards your question, I'm not sure how that would defeat their use for communication - even if my initial suggestion doesn't work.
Instead, one could use them differently: one pair is a transmit (Earth)/receive (base/ship) couplet, the other is a receive (Earth)/transmit (base/ship) couplet.
I still think, given the above, that this might - note, might! - work.
We'll have to await Hack's recovering from his hang-over.
Kindest regards,
James
There are two issues with the article, as I see it.
Firstly, as per your quote from it, rather than having to return to Earth to find out that the string of states for both Alice and Bob are the same, why not assume that they are as intended? Bob simply accepts the sequence of states as if intentionally sent by Alice. You might say that they'll just be random "noise" - initially, yes but at some point a pattern will emerge, a "signal", when Alice is actually sending a message.
Secondly, the author deals with a set state for Alice's particle, and a undetermined state for Bob's. What if both were undetermined or the same or the opposite? Would this solve the problem?
As regards your question, I'm not sure how that would defeat their use for communication - even if my initial suggestion doesn't work.
Instead, one could use them differently: one pair is a transmit (Earth)/receive (base/ship) couplet, the other is a receive (Earth)/transmit (base/ship) couplet.
I still think, given the above, that this might - note, might! - work.
We'll have to await Hack's recovering from his hang-over.
Kindest regards,
James
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Ranting about racism atm after last night's predictable shitshow,.
Aha! And this is relevant because until the wave function collapsed (they lost), the black members of England's football team were in a superposition of Great British Hero / foreign undesirable darkey.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I remember back in the noughties in Formula 1. If he won, it was British racing driver Eddie Irvine. If he lost, it was crap Irishman Eddie Irvine.
While I don't want to make this thread about that, I think that this whole thread puts all that into an entirely absurd perspective.
Imagine a world in which people weren't captives of human manufactured psychological dramas, but instead the majority of human enterprise was all driven towards figuring this shit out and making stuff for the betterment of all our lives.
Imagine a world in which people weren't captives of human manufactured psychological dramas, but instead the majority of human enterprise was all driven towards figuring this shit out and making stuff for the betterment of all our lives.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
If electrons can not be broken down into smaller particles, does that mean they are infinitely hard?
No, hardness is not actually a property of electrons.