1 edit
@metal-brain saidyet another one of your many stupid straw mans.
I proved him wrong countless times and I just did it again.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-we-still-cant-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light/#40a237824d5d
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/#2e637d363a1e
I didn't claim it is possible to communicate faster than light and I was ALREADY well aware that, just as those two links explain, quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate faster than light and I said/implied nothing to the contrary.
Thus neither link proves me 'wrong' about anything because I said/implied nothing to contradict what is said in those two links.
@wolfgang59 saidThe actual experiment was done by Alain Aspect.
You mean by whom?
Such phenomena (entanglements) were the subject of a 1935 paper
by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, and several papers
by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter, describing what came to be
known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior
to be impossible, as it violated the local realis ...[text shortened]... lement
So that was in 1935 (later than I first suggested) but it was not proven until much later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect's_experiment
@deepthought saidDid Erwin Schrödinger write an article predicting QE?
The actual experiment was done by Alain Aspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect's_experiment
@ogb saidDon't accept it if it came from wikipedia. Wikipedia contains a lot of BS falsehoods. If Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon first theorized by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 where is a written article by him? I'll believe it when I see it.
Aspect's experiment-- OK I read the article but obviously didn't understand much. It mentioned light traveling with "information" or without "information" ..this is beyond my level of comprehension..can someone explain (in layman's terms) ? TY.
Anybody can post a wikipedia link. Here is one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
@Metal-Brain
Well then, if you say that Wiki piece is full of shyte, write up a paper and submit it to Nature or some physics mag. I would love to see that paper. I assume since you think Wiki is full of crap you know exactly WHERE it is full of crap and will waste no time showing us dullards WHY it is full of crap.
@metal-brain said"Discussion of probability relations between separated systems". (1935)
If Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon first theorized by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 where is a written article by him?
Bibcode:1935PCPS...31..555S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100013554.
"Probability relations between separated systems". (1936)
Bibcode:1936PCPS...32..446S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100019137
@sonhouse saidFred Singer:
@Metal-Brain
Well then, if you say that Wiki piece is full of shyte, write up a paper and submit it to Nature or some physics mag. I would love to see that paper. I assume since you think Wiki is full of crap you know exactly WHERE it is full of crap and will waste no time showing us dullards WHY it is full of crap.
Your Phobos alien conspiracy is still on wikipedia even though Singer NEVER proposed such nonsense. I posted an article by Fred Singer that proves he said Phobos was likely asteroid rubble and NOT hollow with aliens living in it.
If apes could operate a computer they could rewrite the theory of evolution. Wikipedia is BS.
@metal-brain saidIf you had a copy of Hamlet with a typo would you say Shakespeare was BS?
Wikipedia is BS.
@Metal-Brain
YOU mentioned Singer. I said you should write up a paper showing Wiki articles as BS like those dealing with TD and the like.
@metal-brain saidThe Schrödinger equation itself predicts quantum entanglement.
Did Erwin Schrödinger write an article predicting QE?
@sonhouse saidIf you write down the Schrödinger equation for any number of particles greater than one, then they are entangled if the many-body wave function cannot be written as a product state of single-particle wave functions. It is a relatively elementary exercise to come up with such states; they are the rule rather than the exception.
@KazetNagorra
Can you go into that and show where the equations themselves predict entanglement?
@KazetNagorra
So is it easier to be in a superpositional state if the number is 2 V 3 or 4?
I saw work showing entanglements of as many as 5 particles.