emcelhannon

That wasn't exactly my question. I've meet many people, I'm fairly certain are less intellegent than crows. I've beaten the radio a few times and gotten it to work. Now it's my first response to a lot of malfunctioning tech. But I'm also capable of analyzing how a system must work, and developing an experiment to test my thoughts. What I want to know is do they develop an idea, (a hypothosis) before they "experiment?"

Do we feel it's gravity? Is it what dark matter theories are made to explain?

I guess my next question is: from this information, can we conclude that they hypothosize before they experiment, or do they merely remember the results of "happy accedents?" "Hey this sucks. Let's throw stuff at it. Look it worked!" I would like to believe there is more to it than that, but the birds with the vending machine were trained through a 4 step process.

That's an interesting distinction, jimmy. How would the crows be able to consistantly exhibit that behavior without understanding? I would imagine that random trial and error could eventually solve some of their problems, without them understanding why. I would be interested in seeing some of their failed attempts before their successes. That's where the answer to your question is. Obviously, they have a good memory, but are their efforts random or are their attempts focused on rational ideas?

I believe the Aspect experiment and Bell's theorem taught us that that the disruption of entanglement is fundamentaly non-local, that even if there are hiddin variables, they too are non-local in nature. Correct me if this belongs in a different thread. The question I would like to ask is does any string theory, with it's multidimensial ideas offer any insight concerning those kinds of hidden variables? Is the consideration of an extradimensional cause resulting in instant disentanglement a property of any of the well known string theories.

Swansot, You were very helpful. Thanks

I think I see, but to be sure - [*]We can never actually observe a particle in a supperposition. [*]Supperposition particles and particles which have committed to its state, (because their correlated partner has been measured) are indistinguishable when they enter our measurments. Correct me.

Regarding "But it wouldn't do you any good for FTL communication anyway, because you don't know what state the particle would be in." If you could tell if it were in a superposition beforehand, you would recieve information regarding the behavior of the opposite scientist, (wether they took a measurment or not). I feel like I'm missing something. Thank you for your patience.

And I guess it's impossible to simply tell if the others wave function has collapsed, or not, without causing it to collapse. All observations would be of particles, not waves?

Thank you, If you're able to collapse the wave function of an entangled particle at a distance, what keeps us from being able to input a code into the process and communicate at a distance via a series of entangled particles shot from between. I know it's impossible, but I'd appreciate a clearer explaination then I've been able to find elsewhere.

What is the nature of the observations affect on the entanglment. Could there ever be a way to observe without interfering, or is it an absolute rule. If it's absolute, how was it determined. ie examples of experiments