Is Quantum Physics bullshat?

[OsO]

No, it's a bit of a misnomer, but back in the early 20th Century, the measurements that they did seemed like elementary particles were spinning like in classical physics.

If everyone were to get together and decide to rename things from scratch, it probably wouldn't be called spin, but , that's the terminology we're stuck with.

How would you describe the flow of energy in these particles?

 

[Brown_Pride]

That's as definitive as science can get, that's empiricism for you. People mistake that for a weakness of the scientific method but they're wrong, it is in fact its greatest strength.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Yeah? Nobody's saying the state change isn't superluminal, the point I've been saying over and over again is that you can't use it to transfer information.

isn't instantly knowing what something 100k miles away is doing transferring information?

 

[badhat]

I am telling you can and it is so conceptually rudimentary that I am not even being secretive about it
the experiment I showed you from NASA literally reproduces the experiment I proposed to you a few posts earlier
except in mine I separate 2 pairs of tangled photons and promote a timed sequenced change in the co-localized pairs and expectedly, if all current observations hold, I should get a timed sequenced change in the other co-localized pair, the difference in time of the change is the data.
easy peasy
take it easy

The space station and the lab on earth are checking the particles at the same time to test the speed of decoherence.

The key point there is they're checking with a preassigned time, and they're communicating findings with traditional methods.

If the space station's equipment failed at the last second, the lab would not be aware of it until they communicated traditionally. The lab would get a spin state.

 

[badhat]

isn't instantly knowing what something 100k miles away is doing transferring information?

When you observe the particle, there's no way of knowing if you're the one who collapsed the wave function or not.

 

[tmonster]

The space station and the lab on earth are checking the particles at the same time to test the speed of decoherence.

take a moment and think about all the mental twisting this statement presents, given the simple well established reign of instantaneous state transfer as the phenomena of major interest in entanglement.
not sure why you are arguing so hard, enough to rely on vagueness, against my obvious point.

The key point there is they're checking with a preassigned time, and they're communicating findings with traditional methods.

That is not the key point at all, not in relation to this conversation
and them checking at a preassigned time has nothing to do with the internal integrity of the experiment, just the line of site availability of the ISS

If the space station's equipment failed at the last second, the lab would not be aware of it until they communicated traditionally. The lab would get a spin state.

this is complete pablum

 

[badhat]

I've done the work here, I've sat through lectures, I've worked in labs where I've shot particles through magnetic fields into detectors for physicists that are actually pretty well regarded in the field of quantum optics. I'm not saying I'm at CERN, but I know enough people that have worked and are working at CERN that I think if I didn't have the slightest clue what was going on, they'd have mentioned something.

You take that how you want: either believe I'm making this all up, and I'm just bullshytting you on the internet for shyts and giggles, or you can believe that I actually have a pretty good idea of what's going on in that article you posted, and you're not quite getting what I'm saying due to a communication failure on either of our ends. I'm not about to start filling up pages of dense dirac notation equations to win an internet fight though.

 

[tmonster]

I've done the work here, I've sat through lectures, I've worked in labs where I've shot particles through magnetic fields into detectors for physicists that are actually pretty well regarded in the field of quantum optics. I'm not saying I'm at CERN, but I know enough people that have worked and are working at CERN that I think if I didn't have the slightest clue what was going on, they'd have mentioned something.

You take that how you want: either believe I'm making this all up, and I'm just bullshytting you on the internet for shyts and giggles, or you can believe that I actually have a pretty good idea of what's going on in that article you posted, and you're not quite getting what I'm saying due to a communication failure on either of our ends. I'm not about to start filling up pages of dense dirac notation equations to win an internet fight though.

Thank you for sharing your credentials, they are completely irrelevant to the discussion however.

 

[a man of the people]

The problem isn't really timing, like, that's a engineering problem, but nothing in the laws of physics make it unsolvable.
The problem is that you can't force a state, you measure it and it is what it is, you can't choose what the will be spin in order to encode a message. All this system would produce is a random number of bits split at 50%.
Spooky?
For sure.
But not really useful for communication.

 

[Losttribe]

Do we have a more solid theory in 2018?