Editing Talk:1591: Bell's Theorem
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm sure some people here have this memorised, but light travels just under 30 centimetres in a nanosecond. For our Metric-ally challenged friends, that's about one foot – so 5 metres takes around 16.67 nanoseconds. I leave the comic explanation to smarter people than me. [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 13:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | I'm sure some people here have this memorised, but light travels just under 30 centimetres in a nanosecond. For our Metric-ally challenged friends, that's about one foot – so 5 metres takes around 16.67 nanoseconds. I leave the comic explanation to smarter people than me. [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 13:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I have seen Admiral Grace Hopper demonstrate this with approximately foot-long lengths of wire representing "light-nanoseconds". It's accurate to one part in 50 (although not as accurate as the one-part-in-1000 "30 centimeters" measurement). [[User:PsyMar|PsyMar]] ([[User talk:PsyMar|talk]]) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | :I have seen Admiral Grace Hopper demonstrate this with approximately foot-long lengths of wire representing "light-nanoseconds". It's accurate to one part in 50 (although not as accurate as the one-part-in-1000 "30 centimeters" measurement). [[User:PsyMar|PsyMar]] ([[User talk:PsyMar|talk]]) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
The comic only shows that the two characters are 5m apart at chest level. What if there was a miniature wormhole or distortion in time in a separate area, making this seemingly "FTL" communication scientifically possible? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|14:19, 16 October 2015}} | The comic only shows that the two characters are 5m apart at chest level. What if there was a miniature wormhole or distortion in time in a separate area, making this seemingly "FTL" communication scientifically possible? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|14:19, 16 October 2015}} | ||
Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
Wow, the explanation needs some explaining. Can the first part about quantum mechanics be simplified, moved, or have something clearer put in front of it? I don't feel up to the task, but the section is not very helpful. -[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 17:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | Wow, the explanation needs some explaining. Can the first part about quantum mechanics be simplified, moved, or have something clearer put in front of it? I don't feel up to the task, but the section is not very helpful. -[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 17:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
In the widely separated electrons section, isn't it necessary that the two electrons measured be from the same source? If so, the explanation could use that small edit, but I'm not sure I'm remembering right. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 05:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | In the widely separated electrons section, isn't it necessary that the two electrons measured be from the same source? If so, the explanation could use that small edit, but I'm not sure I'm remembering right. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 05:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
Line 18: | Line 15: | ||
Can anyone cite an experiment or proof that *altering* the state of one half of an entangled electron pair *after* they have been separated to a significant distance has any effect upon the other half? So far as I have learned, the two electrons in question are driven to opposite states by close proximity: When separated, they maintain cyclical synchrony until the state of one electron is measured. Environmentally induced state changes have not been shown to propagate between entangled particles after they are separated; They simply retain oppositional synchrony until disentangled by observation (or other interference). Any information derived was imparted at the point of entanglement, or during transit, or by measurement. Introducing new information (state change) to one half of an entangled pair after separation interrupts the synchronous effect, disrupting the entanglement. This is not useful from a communications standpoint. | Can anyone cite an experiment or proof that *altering* the state of one half of an entangled electron pair *after* they have been separated to a significant distance has any effect upon the other half? So far as I have learned, the two electrons in question are driven to opposite states by close proximity: When separated, they maintain cyclical synchrony until the state of one electron is measured. Environmentally induced state changes have not been shown to propagate between entangled particles after they are separated; They simply retain oppositional synchrony until disentangled by observation (or other interference). Any information derived was imparted at the point of entanglement, or during transit, or by measurement. Introducing new information (state change) to one half of an entangled pair after separation interrupts the synchronous effect, disrupting the entanglement. This is not useful from a communications standpoint. | ||
− | |||
Nothing in quantum mechanics actually violates classical mechanics; Rather, quantum mechanics acknowledges that our ability to measure a near-infinite (but still finite) set of variables is limited by the effect of our own observation & by our inability to quantify all relevant variables prior to comparison. Thus "quantum uncertainty" & wave function collapse are merely an admission that any data set is necessarily incomplete, while reserving the possibility of predicting deterministic outcomes by reasoned observation of the limited data available. | Nothing in quantum mechanics actually violates classical mechanics; Rather, quantum mechanics acknowledges that our ability to measure a near-infinite (but still finite) set of variables is limited by the effect of our own observation & by our inability to quantify all relevant variables prior to comparison. Thus "quantum uncertainty" & wave function collapse are merely an admission that any data set is necessarily incomplete, while reserving the possibility of predicting deterministic outcomes by reasoned observation of the limited data available. | ||
At least, that's what the cat told me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.47|108.162.221.47]] 06:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | At least, that's what the cat told me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.47|108.162.221.47]] 06:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |