ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

John Platko wrote:
Well nobody seems to know how an entangled particle "gets the word" that the other entangled particle was discovered to be in a certain state.

The apparent instant communication between the two particles may be an artifact of the experimental setup.

Is this the consensus of the physics community? I thought it was more like: this is how it is - (usual unless we find otherwise disclaimer applies)

Scientists don't say, "This is how it is." Scientists say, "This is what we've observed." We often observe things that aren't. That's why we rely upon experimental replication so much. The more we get a result, the greater our confidence can be that it's representative of reality. You don't see 100% confidence in science. For that you need religion.

Oh really, Sean Carroll sounds pretty certain at 8:50 in this lecture:



While you're posting, do you have anything actually relevant and knowledgable to say about the actual question I asked? Is there good reason to think there's an artifact in entanglement experiments that are creating a false appearance of spooky action at a distance?

John Platko wrote:
While you're posting, do you have anything actually relevant and knowledgable to say about the actual question I asked? Is there good reason to think there's an artifact in entanglement experiments that are creating a false appearance of spooky action at a distance?

It is always reasonable to suspect experimental error, and to choose not to accept scientific findings as if they are established truth. I feel it is important, however, to distinguish this from what the climate-change-deniers and anti-evolutionists are doing. I'm not denying the results, and I'm not attempting to shoehorn my preconceptions in their place. I am simply suspending acceptance until more evidence is available or until I manage to better understand the available evidence. It's called skepticism.

It is reasonable to be skeptical that the "information" conveyed by quantum entanglement is transmitted faster than light because it is inconsistent with a great many of our other observations. There have not been any experiments performed which eliminate all possible confounds regarding quantum entanglement. We're getting close, but while potential confounds remain, the null hypothesis cannot reasonably be rejected.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:
While you're posting, do you have anything actually relevant and knowledgable to say about the actual question I asked? Is there good reason to think there's an artifact in entanglement experiments that are creating a false appearance of spooky action at a distance?

It is always reasonable to suspect experimental error, and to choose not to accept scientific findings as if they are established truth. I feel it is important, however, to distinguish this from what the climate-change-deniers and anti-evolutionists are doing. I'm not denying the results, and I'm not attempting to shoehorn my preconceptions in their place. I am simply suspending acceptance until more evidence is available or until I manage to better understand the available evidence. It's called skepticism.

It is reasonable to be skeptical that the "information" conveyed by quantum entanglement is transmitted faster than light because it is inconsistent with a great many of our other observations. There have not been any experiments performed which eliminate all possible confounds regarding quantum entanglement. We're getting close, but while potential confounds remain, the null hypothesis cannot reasonably be rejected.

I know what information is, but what exactly is "information" and how is the "information" conveyed by quantum entanglement spin being transmitted faster than light inconsistent with any other similar observations?

I'm thinking "information" != information.

I don't really see why more evidence is necessary - it's pretty obvious what's going on. When you observe one of the entangled particles the universe splits and particles with opposite spin always end up in the same universe because they're entangled and it helps keep the angular momentum bean counters, which every universe has, , happy. Or to put it another way, this is the mechanism for how the universe splits into multiple universes. ummm. The English language hasn't quite caught up to all of this.

John Platko wrote:
I know what information is, but what exactly is "information" and how is the "information" conveyed by quantum entanglement spin being transmitted faster than light inconsistent with any other similar observations?

Information about quantum spin entanglement being transmitted faster than light is inconsistent with any other observations because there are no other conditions under which we see information being transmitted faster than light.

I'm thinking "information" != information.

I'm thinking that "information" may or may not = information. Given that every other sort of information we observe is not transmitted faster than light, it may be that, if information is transmitted faster than light by quantum entanglement, it is a different sort of information. Can you say otherwise? I'm not making a claim. I'm allowing space for more explanations, assuming we can ever control all of the confounds inherent in the experimental models.

I don't really see why more evidence is necessary - it's pretty obvious what's going on. When you observe one of the entangled particles the universe splits and particles with opposite spin always end up in the same universe because they're entangled and it helps keep the angular momentum bean counters, which every universe has, , happy. Or to put it another way, this is the mechanism for how the universe splits into multiple universes. ummm. The English language hasn't quite caught up to all of this.

More evidence is necessary because there remain confounds in the experimental models which have not been fully accounted for. Until those confounds are dealt with, we cannot discard the null hypothesis.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I know what information is, but what exactly is "information" and how is the "information" conveyed by quantum entanglement spin being transmitted faster than light inconsistent with any other similar observations?

Information about quantum spin entanglement being transmitted faster than light is inconsistent with any other observations because there are no other conditions under which we see information being transmitted faster than light.

But it is known that the quantum spin syncing of distant entangled particles is not the same as transmitting information as we normally use that word. I don't know if there is a word for what this communication like, but not really, thing is.

My point is, it is something other than what is meant when it is said that information transmission is limited by the speed of light so we can't use those things that are limited by the speed of light as a reason to limit this very different phenomenon.

It really comes down to. Exactly why do you think there would be any sort of speed limit for one entangled particle to get in sync with it's partner?

I'm thinking "information" != information.

I'm thinking that "information" may or may not = information. Given that every other sort of information we observe is not transmitted faster than light, it may be that, if information is transmitted faster than light by quantum entanglement, it is a different sort of information. Can you say otherwise?

It seems pretty clear that it is not information as we normally define it.

I'm not making a claim. I'm allowing space for more explanations, assuming we can ever control all of the confounds inherent in the experimental models.

Do you have any specific reasons not to trust the experiments that have already been done. From what I've read there does seem to be a bit of a reason to be suspicious but most physicists who like going out in public seem not to emphasize that. They seem to emphasize how much data they have to back up the weirdness.

I don't really see why more evidence is necessary - it's pretty obvious what's going on. When you observe one of the entangled particles the universe splits and particles with opposite spin always end up in the same universe because they're entangled and it helps keep the angular momentum bean counters, which every universe has, , happy. Or to put it another way, this is the mechanism for how the universe splits into multiple universes. ummm. The English language hasn't quite caught up to all of this.

More evidence is necessary because there remain confounds in the experimental models which have not been fully accounted for. Until those confounds are dealt with, we cannot discard the null hypothesis.

It seems like this entanglement stuff gets a lot of play for something that hasn't been fully sussed out. Which physicists are going on record with their doubts on entanglement as it's usually presented?

John Platko wrote:
It seems pretty clear that it is not information as we normally define it.

No, it isn't clear. If it seems clear to you, you should probably do some more reading.

Do you have any specific reasons not to trust the experiments that have already been done. From what I've read there does seem to be a bit of a reason to be suspicious but most physicists who like going out in public seem not to emphasize that. They seem to emphasize how much data they have to back up the weirdness.

There's always reason to be skeptical about experimental results. Scientists are human, and like other human beings, can get prematurely excited by results. Looking to the behavior of scientists as a means of judging how likely their results are to reflect reality is among the most idiotic means of evaluating science I can think of.

It seems like this entanglement stuff gets a lot of play for something that hasn't been fully sussed out. Which physicists are going on record with their doubts on entanglement as it's usually presented?

I know, right? It's almost as if humans are primates and primates are hardwired to pay extra attention to novel stimulus.

Hey, could you do us all a favor and take a step back from your fixation with authority? It would be tremendously helpful. You can absolutely find physicists who are convinced by the available evidence that ftl transmission of information via quantum entanglement should be accepted as fact. But I can also dig up physicists who are not yet convinced that what the experiments appear to show is what they actually show. As I keep saying: We cannot reject the null hypothesis until all of the experimental confounds have been dealt with. That's just science. The null hypothesis must always be the favored hypothesis. When it isn't, we wind up with Pons and Fleishmann-scale embarrassment.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:
It seems pretty clear that it is not information as we normally define it.

No, it isn't clear. If it seems clear to you, you should probably do some more reading.

Read what?

Do you have any specific reasons not to trust the experiments that have already been done. From what I've read there does seem to be a bit of a reason to be suspicious but most physicists who like going out in public seem not to emphasize that. They seem to emphasize how much data they have to back up the weirdness.

There's always reason to be skeptical about experimental results. Scientists are human, and like other human beings, can get prematurely excited by results. Looking to the behavior of scientists as a means of judging how likely their results are to reflect reality is among the most idiotic means of evaluating science I can think of.

Sure, but that's just boiler plate: "this is how science works". Who are the credible doubting Thomas quantum entanglement physicists?

It seems like this entanglement stuff gets a lot of play for something that hasn't been fully sussed out. Which physicists are going on record with their doubts on entanglement as it's usually presented?

I know, right? It's almost as if humans are primates and primates are hardwired to pay extra attention to novel stimulus.

Hey, could you do us all a favor and take a step back from your fixation with authority? It would be tremendously helpful.

As in a lot of areas, when it comes to quantum physics I must rely on the power of the consensus of the credible experts. It is too complex and quarky a field of theories for me to make up or down of it all. I simply must rely on good arguments from authority. Now if you know any of these that give good arguments for why spooky action at a distance might be being misinterpreted then present them. But you just saying, hold on, I'm skeptical doesn't cut much mustard.

You can absolutely find physicists who are convinced by the available evidence that ftl transmission of information via quantum entanglement should be accepted as fact.

But I can also dig up physicists who are not yet convinced that what the experiments appear to show is what they actually show.

Name names and I'll check them out. It's not like I want to believe spooky action at a distance is fact - it would be easier to put quantum entanglement in my minds "ideas under construction" area and check back later. Facts like entanglement just tend to mess with my mind.

As I keep saying: We cannot reject the null hypothesis until all of the experimental confounds have been dealt with. That's just science.

I don't mean to be rude here, but to me you are an anonymous guy on the internets and your "we" doesn't represent the consensus of science "we". Especially since all you're offering is an opinion - not even a well presented detailed argument as to what else could be afoot with entanglement.

The null hypothesis must always be the favored hypothesis. When it isn't, we wind up with Pons and Fleishmann-scale embarrassment.

Sounds like more boiler plate argument to me. This should be easy, just point to the credible physicists who give detailed explanations of why entanglement may not work as people hype it to work and I'll go check them out. This should be easy-peasy.

Any credible quantum physicist will tell your that superluminal communication is a hypothesis that has not as yet been confirmed experimentally.

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
As I keep saying: We cannot reject the null hypothesis until all of the experimental confounds have been dealt with. That's just science.

I don't mean to be rude here, but to me you are an anonymous guy on the internets and your "we" doesn't represent the consensus of science "we". Especially since all you're offering is an opinion - not even a well presented detailed argument as to what else could be afoot with entanglement.

Actually, yes, "we" in this case DOES consist of a scientific consensus because favoring the null hypothesis is the very basis of experimental design and interpretation. You don't need to take the word of some asshole on the internet. Look it up yourself or drag your lazy ass to a university and ask any of the science professors about it. I highly recommend this as a starting point for the more reading I recommended that you do. Simply read the most basic shit you can find about the scientific method and experimental design. Then read less basic stuff about the same thing. Then we can talk some more about what you've found. Until then, as you've demonstrated a complete absence of comprehension regarding experimental design and interpretation- in this and other threads- I don't see any further need for us to discuss it.

Until you understand what a null hypothesis is, how scientists use them, and why they're important, you're in no position to argue about interpreting experimental results.

THWOTH wrote:Any credible quantum physicist will tell your that superluminal communication is a hypothesis that has not as yet been confirmed experimentally.

I would hope so but I don't see what that has to do with entanglement.

from

Superluminal communication is a hypothetical process in which information is sent at faster-than-light (FTL) speeds. The current scientific consensus is that faster-than-light communication is not possible, and to date it has not been achieved in any experiment.

Superluminal communication is believed to be impossible because, in a Lorentz-invariant theory, it could be used to transmit information into the past. This contradicts causality and leads to logical paradoxes.

And quantum locality seems to be a different kettle of fish than superluminal communication.

from

In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality is the phenomenon by which measurements made at a microscopic level contradict a collection of notions known as local realism that are regarded as intuitively true in classical mechanics. Rigorously, quantum nonlocality refers to quantum mechanical predictions of many-system measurement correlations that cannot be simulated by any local hidden variable theory. Many entangled quantum states exhibit such correlations, as demonstrated by Bell's theorem, and as verified by experiment.

Experiments have generally favoured quantum mechanics as a description of nature, over local hidden variable theories.[1][2] Any physical theory that supersedes or replaces quantum theory must make similar experimental predictions and must therefore also be nonlocal in this sense; quantum nonlocality is a property of the universe that is independent of our description of nature.

Whilst quantum nonlocality improves the efficiency of various computational tasks,[3] it does not allow for faster-than-light communication,[4] and hence is compatible with special relativity. However, it prompts many of the foundational discussions concerning quantum theory.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
As I keep saying: We cannot reject the null hypothesis until all of the experimental confounds have been dealt with. That's just science.

I don't mean to be rude here, but to me you are an anonymous guy on the internets and your "we" doesn't represent the consensus of science "we". Especially since all you're offering is an opinion - not even a well presented detailed argument as to what else could be afoot with entanglement.

Actually, yes, "we" in this case DOES consist of a scientific consensus because favoring the null hypothesis is the very basis of experimental design and interpretation. You don't need to take the word of some asshole on the internet. Look it up yourself or drag your lazy ass to a university and ask any of the science professors about it. I highly recommend this as a starting point for the more reading I recommended that you do. Simply read the most basic shit you can find about the scientific method and experimental design. Then read less basic stuff about the same thing. Then we can talk some more about what you've found. Until then, as you've demonstrated a complete absence of comprehension regarding experimental design and interpretation- in this and other threads- I don't see any further need for us to discuss it.

Until you understand what a null hypothesis is, how scientists use them, and why they're important, you're in no position to argue about interpreting experimental results.

I'll take that as a, no - you can't point to credible physicists who explain why they don't accept the science of entanglement as our current best representation of reality - including spooky action at a distance. Why not just say so?

John Platko wrote:
I'll take that as a, no - you can't point to credible physicists who explain why they don't accept the science of entanglement as our current best representation of reality - including spooky action at a distance. Why not just say so?

I can see that, rather than shifting your lazy ass and learning about what you're trying to discuss, you continue to feel more comfortable relying on proclamations from authority figures. There is no such thing in science. A scientist is only an authority to the extent that they competently utilize the scientific method, which includes the correct employment of the null hypothesis in every experimental design.

I am disengaging from your trolling now.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I'll take that as a, no - you can't point to credible physicists who explain why they don't accept the science of entanglement as our current best representation of reality - including spooky action at a distance. Why not just say so?

I can see that, rather than shifting your lazy ass and learning about what you're trying to discuss, you continue to feel more comfortable relying on proclamations from authority figures. There is no such thing in science. A scientist is only an authority to the extent that they competently utilize the scientific method, which includes the correct employment of the null hypothesis in every experimental design.

I am disengaging from your trolling now.

Impossible because there is no trolling on my part to disengage from. Are you sure you have adequately considered the null hypothesis in that matter?

You have provided no specifics that I have seen as to why the experiments that have convinced every verifiable physicist that I can find that spooky action at a distance is how reality behaves are reasonable to be considered inconclusive.

From Star Trek Voyager, Season 2, Episode 15, Threshold

NEELIX: What are you saying? I'm not smart enough? I'll have you know I did two years as an engineer's assistant aboard a Trabalian freighter. I'm well-versed in warp theory.
PARIS: Okay, okay. We'll tell you. We're trying to break the maximum warp barrier.
KIM: Nothing in the universe can go warp ten. It's a theoretical impossibility. In principle, if you were ever to reach warp ten, you'd be travelling at infinite velocity.
NEELIX: Infinite velocity. Got it. So that means very fast.
PARIS: It means that you would occupy every point in the universe simultaneously. In theory, you could go any place in the wink of an eye. Time and distance would have no meaning.
(See Douglas Adams for further details.)
KIM: If Voyager achieved warp ten, we could be home in as long as it takes to push a button.

http://www.chakoteya.net/Voyager/212.htm

---

How does this work?

tuco wrote:From Star Trek Voyager, Season 2, Episode 15, Threshold

NEELIX: What are you saying? I'm not smart enough? I'll have you know I did two years as an engineer's assistant aboard a Trabalian freighter. I'm well-versed in warp theory.
PARIS: Okay, okay. We'll tell you. We're trying to break the maximum warp barrier.
KIM: Nothing in the universe can go warp ten. It's a theoretical impossibility. In principle, if you were ever to reach warp ten, you'd be travelling at infinite velocity.
NEELIX: Infinite velocity. Got it. So that means very fast.
PARIS: It means that you would occupy every point in the universe simultaneously. In theory, you could go any place in the wink of an eye. Time and distance would have no meaning.
(See Douglas Adams for further details.)
KIM: If Voyager achieved warp ten, we could be home in as long as it takes to push a button.

http://www.chakoteya.net/Voyager/212.htm

---

How does this work?

It doesn't work. Or at least, not very meaningfully. My big gripe is that there isn't any sort of meaningful way that the warp factors have been laid out. If one assumes that warp factors are logarithmic, it makes a little bit of sense, because then warp factor one becomes 1n^1 where n=some arbitrary velocity value, warp factor 2 becomes 1n^2, and so on, and if n is ten somethings, warp factor ten is something with ten zeroes after it, which sounds really, really fast. But it can't be infinitely fast because even though something with ten zeroes after it sounds really, really fast, it's almost infinity zeroes shy of the infinity zeroes it would need to be an infinite speed.

Warp drive velocity in Star Trek is generally expressed in "warp factor" units, which—according to the Star Trek Technical Manuals—correspond to the magnitude of the warp field. Achieving warp factor 1 is equal to breaking the light barrier, while the actual velocity corresponding to higher factors is determined using an ambiguous formula. Several episodes of the original series placed the Enterprise in peril by having it travel at high warp factors; at one point in "That Which Survives" the Enterprise traveled at a warp factor of 14.1 (any faster than warp 10.0 would theoretically send you backwards in time). In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Most Toys" the crew of Enterprise-D discovers that the android Data may have been stolen while on board another ship, Jovis. At this point the Jovis, which has a maximum warp factor of 3 has had a 23-hour head start, which the Enterprise-D figures puts her anywhere within a 0.102 light year radius of her last known position. However, the velocity (in present dimensional units) of any given warp factor is rarely the subject of explicit expression, and travel times for specific interstellar distances are not consistent through the various series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_driv ... velocities

Warp factors are arbitrary units of speed which are inconsistently applied to conceal the plot devices necessary to move a story forward. As you can see from the quoted material, warp factor 10 cannot possibly be infinitely fast, because the Enterprise D goes 4.1 warp factors faster without going infinitely fast.

Please put on a pair of thick plastic framed glasses and read this post in nasal tone.

Actually SS, I think you will find that it is not the Enterprise-D that travels 4.1 warp factors faster, it is actually the Enterprise, an entirely different starship.

Thommo wrote:Please put on a pair of thick plastic framed glasses and read this post in nasal tone.

I fear that this would take us closer to realism than is appropriate for an internet discussion forum.

Actually SS, I think you will find that it is not the Enterprise-D that travels 4.1 warp factors faster, it is actually the Enterprise, an entirely different starship.

I'm not the right sort of nerd to actually be doing this.

Considering how fast they whizz by stars, their speed is absurdly fast, and it's even funnier when they decide to come to 'a complete stop'. What the hell is that supposed to even mean? No, it's not always with respect to another ship, and seldom references a planet or star that I remember.

crank wrote:Considering how fast they whizz by stars, their speed is absurdly fast, and it's even funnier when they decide to come to 'a complete stop'. What the hell is that supposed to even mean? No, it's not always with respect to another ship, and seldom references a planet or star that I remember.

Star Trek was never about science. It was always about getting it on with hotties with body paint on. And maybe furries. Does Neelix count as a furry?

Maximum impulse.

Yeah. Explain that one nerds.