Old Guy In Stanton

OK, then Question #2: is it possible to capture these two electrons in two boxes of some sort? Perhaps inside a magnetic or electric field that keeps each electron stable (without triggering wave collapse)? IOW, two electrons with entangled spins, 10 feet apart in two little boxes of some nature?

OK, let me restate my question: Make the quantum particles electrons, and entangle their spins. What, then, IS spin, how will each electron be affected, does spin affect charge in any way, and what happens to the two electrons when the wave function is collapsed by "looking at" one of the electrons?

I am not a physicist, nor even a scientist, but I would like to put forth an argument for an idea I have that is related to quantum entanglement. I believe that this is a testable/replicable concept. The concept requires, I think, several "leading" assumptions/questions, maybe as many as ten of them, to get everyone thinking on the same page, as it were. I will try to make the questions as plain and unambiguous as possible. I will ask the questions one at a time, evaluating responses and restating the assumption/question until there is consensus of what is meant. I would appreciate plain language responses, if possible. Question #1: I have read that it is now possible to entangle quantum particles. I've read that what is entangled is certain properties, such as spin, or magnetic charge, or electric charge. So: is it possible to entangle two quantum particles in such a way that their magnetic charges or electrical charges are identical, or linked in some way, and what would those ways be?

This article appears to state that quantum action can be communicated. what am I not understanding here? http://www.livescience.com/5499-einsteins-spooky-physics-entangled.html "Using electric fields and lasers, the researchers herded the ions into separate pairs and then entangled their motion. Then they separated the pairs by 240 micrometers (millionths of a meter), which is actually quite a span for an atom. Even at this distance, when the researchers changed the motion of one pair — stopped or started the vibrations — the other responded immediately, stopping or starting in kind." If this is correct, I do not see why my scheme would not work.

Is there any way that a quantum-level event could trigger a macro-level event? Is the previous sentence a good summary of what happens at CERN when an electron hits a target? I think I'm clear on what I am asking, now: (1) Is there a way for a quantum-level event to trigger a macro-level event? AND (2) Is it possible to entangle two quantum particles in such a way that affecting one causes the other to change its behavior (i.e.: BE some macro-measurable event. These are the two key points. If (and ONLY if) both of the above are possible, then a system of four boxes, arranged as in my OP example (but with just two boxes instead of 27), should be able to instantaneously communicate information over a distance. - The transmitting person triggers box A, but leaves box B alone. - The receiving box A quantum event (change in whatever quantum behavior it has) rings a bell. - The receiving box B does NOT have a quantum event, because the transmitting box A was not touched. - The receiving person sees that the box that rang it's alarm bell is labeled A, and therefore knows that this is what the other person sent. Can you show that either (1) or (2) above is impossible? Addendum: I googled "can a quantum event trigger a macro event" and found this: https://books.google.com/books?id=a4JhVFaUOjgC&pg=PA839&lpg=PA839&dq=can+a+quantum+event+trigger+a+macro+event&source=bl&ots=aC5RziV0Yv&sig=03Wo1T3pvir09MktDmB-u-4Dbco&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP9oK3sNXLAhVO2mMKHayUANIQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=can%20a%20quantum%20event%20trigger%20a%20macro%20event&f=false And that jogged my memory. In microbiology, proton pumps are doing stuff with quantum-level particles. That article mentions quantum events triggering point mutations. Here's an article on how to entangle electrons. Apparently, it can now be done on demand. https://erc.europa.eu/succes-stories/how-entangle-two-electrons-%E2%80%93-and-do-it-again-and-again So what kind of stable behaviors could these electrons be induced to have, that collapsing the wave could cause the "receiver" electron to change it's stable behavior?

So what you are saying is that there is no way to know what is in the box without opening it, but you don't know which of the 27 boxes to open because you don't know what is in the box. And when you open them, you don't know the significance of what you find in each, because you don't know that this is the box that changed. Is that a fair restatement? OK, I think I understand that. The problem is that you are checking the "identity" or contents of the box. Is there a way for a quantum event to create a macro event?

Is there no way for an unknown change in a quantum particle to effect a change on the macro level? When an electron stops going around and around an accelerator, it hits a target of some kind that sets off an alarm. Change in activity of quantum particle >>>>> change in macro state of alarm. Isn't this what they do at CERN?

Again, you don't care what happens. You don't need to measure anything as far as that box is concerned. All you need to know is that THIS box, or THAT box changed. - Look at box C - Waveform of the particle in box C collapses - Previously-established entanglement with the particle in the other box C collapses - The particle in the other box does something other that what it was doing (you don't care what). - NONE of the other boxes have changed. - Therefore, because THIS box changed, and THIS box is labeled "C" on both ends, you have communicated the letter "C." Nothing else needs to be sent to the receiver. You don't need to know what the person who is transmitting measured.

Isn't that the assumption with Schrodinger's Cat? The particle sets off an event that kills the cat. Or not. You don't know, because you don't (and cannot) know what the particle will do. But in this scenario, you don't CARE whether the event kills the cat or not. An event merely has to happen with that particular "box." One possibility would be that: that the collapse causes the receiver particle to do something else other than quietly go around the accelerator. Say it hits a wall of the accelerator, which sets off a detector. Again, you don't care where it hits (left, right, up, down) merely that it does something other than what it is doing. Break the overall scenario down into specific issues: are you telling me that it is impossible for a quantum event of unknown effect to trigger a detector? Happens all the time at CERN. Again, you don't care WHAT detector in a particular accelerator is triggered, merely that one is triggered in the "A" or the "B", etc. receiver box. Imagine 27 cats, and one of them is either killed or released. All you need to know is which cat.

I thought about putting this in the pseudoscience forum, but I am pretty sure this is based on a decent lay understanding of quantum theory basics. I have a thought experiment on quantum entanglement and communication that I would like to present and get some feedback on. - Imagine a "transmitter" that consists of a bank or row of 27 boxes. - Think of these boxes as keys on a keyboard. - Each box contains a tiny linear accelerator, with a single particle in it, going around and around. - Each box is labeled for a letter of the alphabet, with the last box labeled "space." - Now imagine a "receiver" which consists of another row of 27 boxes. - Again, each box has a tiny linear accelerator, with a single particle in it, going around and around. - Each of these particles is entangled with it's counterpart particle in the "transmitter" bank. - Again, each box is labeled for a letter of the alphabet, with the last box labeled "space." So you have two banks of accelerators. You move the two banks an inch (or a lightyear) away from each other: Transmitter: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [space] ^ | | Some Distance | V Receiver: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [space] - The particle in the transmitter's "A" accelerator is entangled with the particle in the receiver's "A" accelerator. - Same applies for B, C, D.... [space] accelerators. - Action: 1) On the transmitter end, I press, or otherwise disturb or "look at" the third key. 2) This collapses the wave state of the particle in that accelerator. 3) This breaks entanglement between that particle and the one in the other "C" box on the receiver. 4) The receiver-end particle does something other than its continuous circling, and creates a macro event. 5) Note: I don't care WHAT it does, merely that it does something... and that the other 26 boxes do nothing. 6) This macro event is labeled "C" I have just communicated a piece of information. I do the same three more times, collapsing the wave states of the "A", "T" and "space" keys. I have now instantly transmitted the word "CAT" over a distance of an inch (or a light year). I note that I cannot re-use these two banks of accelerators, to re-transmit new C's, A's, T's, or spaces, as entanglement is broken for these four keys. But if each row of each bank has many such "ranks" of matched accelerators (say in a grid 27 wide X 100 deep), I can discard the "empties" and use the next accelerator in line for that particular piece of encoded data. Here is the principle: For each of the boxes, I do not care what each of the entangled particles does. All I care about is WHICH BOX in the receiver bank creates a macro event of some sort. The number of the box tells me what the data is. OK, can someone tell me in plain, specific English why this will not work?

If you stop the current flow in an electromagnet, the magnetic field collapses. Energy flow - input of energy from somewhere - is therefore obviously necessary for an electromagnet. So is the magnetism of an electromagnet somehow different in kind (principle, operation) than the magnetism of a permanent magnet? If not, then where does the energy flow come from in a permanent magnet? I am very sorry if I am sounding obtuse here, but this simply does not made sense to me.

I was playing around with a permanent magnet today and the thought suddenly struck me: There is an energy field here. Surely that must mean that it is using energy to maintain that field. But the field strength of a magnet doesn't decrease, does it? Whence, then, comes the continuous flow of energy that powers the field?

I'm just not getting it. Is it not true that the entire Shrodinger's Cat thought experiment is based on a collapsing wave form setting off (or NOT setting off) a poison gas? Are there not, therefore, known mechanisms to "translate" the collapsing wave form to some event in the "macro" world? In other words, WHY does nothing happen in step 8? 1) the particles are entangled 2) you collapse the function of the "C" particle on earth 3) therefore the function of the "C" particle on the ship also must collapse 4) and as I said, you don't CARE which way the wave form on the ship collapses - merely that it does collapse (on the "C" particle as opposed to any of the other entangled particles). You encode the communication by selecting which "ordered" pairs of particles to collapse. Meaning is communicated by the position of the particles in the set of ordered particle pairs, not by what the ordered pair does. You don't care what the ordered pair does - merely that it does something. And you do not need to compare the measurements of the particle on Earth and the particle on the ship. The people on the ship merely look to see which particle changed. How it changed is irrelevant. They don't need to measure the particle on the ship. Since it is entangled with the collapsed particle on Earth, the particle on the ship will collapse whether anyone "looks" at it or not, right. That wave form collapse on the ship simply needs to "fire" a Shrodinger Cat event (of whatever result). The result is irrlevant too. What is important is merely that a result was triggered for THAT particular ("C-spot") particle. Again, please, what is wrong with the above logic?

But the alien comm techs are all unionized, so there is doubletime.

The problem with your idea is that disproving global warming is an attempt to prove a negative assertion (that something is NOT). How do you prove that something is NOT, exactly? And it seems to me that the entire basis of science is proving that something IS.