Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This... this excites me greatly. Breaking the "light barrier"? Amazing.
"Also, your light switch analogy isn't very good. It's better to think of it this way:
Suppose you've got two entangled light switches that control the lights in their respective rooms. The only way you can work the switch is to open the door and look inside the room, but you don't know whether the switch is going to turn the lights on or off. By opening your door, you choose whether the light in your room will be on or off AS WELL AS whether the light in your counterpart's room will be on or off. But this is ONLY IF your counterpart has not already opened their door already, which you cannot know unless they communicate that fact to you. Reply
Thut promoted this comment
@Bloodoflamb: Spooky action indeed. Reply
@Bloodoflamb: So what if you agree to a predetermined schedule that determines when you and your counterpart your respective doors? Reply
@Bloodoflamb: Or, more simply, flipping one switch up switches the other up, and for down, and vice versa. It's not a difficult concept to grasp--we might not know the quantum state to begin with, but we can monitor any change in said state and interpret, sort of a morse code/binary.
Although, these would work better in pairs, one for upload and one for download--each side of the transmission chooses one particle to monitor, the other to manipulate, and hope they don't get them crossed.
I know it's more complicated than all that, but someone will figure out a way to make it seem this simple. Reply
Edited by senselocke at 06/07/10 5:26 PM
@senselocke: You're missing the point. Monitoring the state is the same as observing the state is the same as changing the state.
There is no simple, effective explanation for this process. Believe me - I've done the math. Reply
Edited by Bloodoflamb at 06/07/10 5:33 PM
@Bloodoflamb: Ah, I see what you mean. There is no one-way--to observe on one end is to alter something on both ends, therefore to "look" is the same as to "change", right? Reply
@senselocke: That's partially right. To 'look' is to 'change' ONLY IF the other person HASN'T looked. You wouldn't KNOW whether they've looked, though, unless they've sent a communication to you that they did. Reply
@Bloodoflamb: Well, yeah, because observing a particle alters said particle, and if either particle is observed, both are altered. Reply
@senselocke: Unless it was already altered. Say it's in a state that's both "up and down," as is its entangled particle pair. If the other person "looks at" their particle and measures it to be "up," then you will measure your particle to be "down." No amount of measuring will show your particle as being "up."
it's what I do on DiS all the time anyway
the Gallivespians communicate with an instrument that uses this phenomenon. It would be quite cool if it were real.