31–40 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That precisely is so much of the appeal of The Expanse ! For getting around our solar system, take plausible, foreseeable tech and add just a bit of secret sauce (the Epstein drive). So,.. the evolutionary path of society as depicted in the series is plausible.
I wanted to like it so badly but the show just didn't hook me. Need to give it another chance sometime
The gap I still have in my understanding: One hypothesis is that there is no spooky action. One particle was 'always' going to resolve one way, likewise with the other. Like inspecting 'heads' on one side of a coin 'forces' 'tails' onto the other side. I accept that this coin-hypothesis has been disproved by people who actually know what they're talking about. But to me, this implies that you should build your spooky…
> I accept that this coin-hypothesis has been disproved by people who actually knows what they're talking about. The classical idea is more like as follows: you have a guy Charles who makes two letters each with a card in that has written on it either number 0 or 1, and gives one letter to Alice and another to Bob. Now, "entanglement" here is that if Charles writes 0 in Alice's letter he writes the number 1 in Bob's,…
And then a measurement isn't just to land a die, but also to choose which axis to measure - ie ask the dice are you a 1 or a 6. The other die magically spins around to the same axis and gives the corresponding result.
But I'm not sure this analogy is satisfactory and explains the 'spookiness' either.
What we usually call the speed of light is in fact the maximum speed of information propagation.
It is not about light, and you should think about quantum entanglement as a hidden variable, there is no magic there.
Can we simply tell that the entanglement was collapsed on the other end? That would be sufficient to transmit information. If planet x is habitable when I get there, I measure/collapse this specific particle, whose counterpart is back on earth in a detector named "habitable". When the detector fires on earth because this particle was measured/collapsed on planet x, people on earth know planet x is habitable. There's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the whole "planet's climate is stable enough for a sapient species to evolve and become hyper-advanced yet so unstable they're going to be wiped out" is so, so stupid.
What’s stupid about it?
Can we simply tell that the entanglement was collapsed on the other end? That would be sufficient to transmit information. If planet x is habitable when I get there, I measure/collapse this specific particle, whose counterpart is back on earth in a detector named "habitable". When the detector fires on earth because this particle was measured/collapsed on planet x, people on earth know planet x is habitable. There's…
The gap I still have in my understanding: One hypothesis is that there is no spooky action. One particle was 'always' going to resolve one way, likewise with the other. Like inspecting 'heads' on one side of a coin 'forces' 'tails' onto the other side. I accept that this coin-hypothesis has been disproved by people who actually know what they're talking about. But to me, this implies that you should build your spooky…
Can we simply tell that the entanglement was collapsed on the other end? That would be sufficient to transmit information. If planet x is habitable when I get there, I measure/collapse this specific particle, whose counterpart is back on earth in a detector named "habitable". When the detector fires on earth because this particle was measured/collapsed on planet x, people on earth know planet x is habitable. There's…
The only thing that is known is that the other entangled particle has opposite spin than what you register.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I accept that this coin-hypothesis has been disproved by people who actually knows what they're talking about. The classical idea is more like as follows: you have a guy Charles who makes two letters each with a card in that has written on it either number 0 or 1, and gives one letter to Alice and another to Bob. Now, "entanglement" here is that if Charles writes 0 in Alice's letter he writes the number 1 in Bob's,…
The key difference, unlike the usual sock example or your letter example, it is not about knowing. The superimposed quantum states have not been fixed. It is both colour or or letters or states at the same time all the time unlike it is measured. It is not the knowledge about a pre-existed, the individual state does not exist until measurement. That is the crazy part.
The gap I still have in my understanding: One hypothesis is that there is no spooky action. One particle was 'always' going to resolve one way, likewise with the other. Like inspecting 'heads' on one side of a coin 'forces' 'tails' onto the other side. I accept that this coin-hypothesis has been disproved by people who actually know what they're talking about. But to me, this implies that you should build your spooky…
You cannot tell if a particle has been measured or not without...measuring it. The key to understanding this is that _any_ interaction with anything counts as a "measurement" from the particles perspective. I like to think that our simulation has a bandwidth compression algorithm that only decodes the state of a particle when it needs to calculate an interaction. Just like how your dungeon crawler doesn't spawn mobs…
I can invent a story that the coin in my pocket has two sides, each of which is in a superposition of heads and tails.
If you disprove that by repeatedly looking at both sides and noting that they always end up different, then I can invent the story that the observed side tells the unobserved side what to become.
If you disprove that by separating the sides by a great distance before observing them both, I can invent the story that they coordinate instantaneously, ignoring the speed of light.