swansont

You have to show the feasibility of warp drive. You’ve skipped that part.

It can be that there is a common cause for two bits of data that results in correlation. But correlation may just be a statistical fluke, with no cause. Thus not an effect.

! Moderator Note You should have only one topic per thread.

No, the best you can say is if there is a signal, it’s superluminal. But you haven’t identified the signal. Since the states are undetermined, this is moot Teleportation destroys the knowledge of the state of the source particle; it’s not a copy, since that would violate the “no-cloning” theorem

I was thinking it was further back, but then 2019 was about ten years ago… Saw the notification today. Yesterday was a lost day; I got flu and COVID booster shots on Tuesday. Completely wiped me out.

As I understand it, the domain name can only be renewed by the owner if the domain name. The mods can’t do anything about it.

This has happened before, some years ago.

No, it’s that the particles are in undetermined states. There is no “swap” Since there is a correlation of states, all of the information about the states is revealed once you make a single measurement.

Does the distance really exist, or is it a measurement we use to explain movement?

Because you aren’t blocking the sensor.

I like how they say “the magnetic moment, often measured in Bohr magnetons or nuclear magnetons” and then proceed to not do that, LOL

! Moderator Note You have asked this multiple times. One thread per topic, please.

Or show where the formula indicates a signal between the particles.

Once you postulate violating physical law, you can’t draw any valid conclusions about what happens. You’ve decided physics doesn’t apply.

It can be a regular toss but with no information about the mechanics of the flip itself. You don’t know how high or anything about the rotation.

Yes, and I questioned the relevance of the example. Perhaps you could actually answer the questions put to you. Or perhaps the reason you don’t is that you can’t. You should provide a citation when you post a quote And I asked for QM, not an article about QM (which, as Eise points out, says that there is no signal) The QM says that if I have 1/sqrt2 |12> - 1/sqrt2 |21> and I make a measurement, I will get either |12> or |21>. IOW I will know the states of both. There’s nothing about a signal between the particles. It’s simply not part of the theory.

Currently not viable. Whether it is by 2040 is questionable. There’s still quite a ways to go before energy generation can occur. We have a couple of recent threads on the topic.

If they are co-located, everyone agrees that the events are simultaneous. This is a poor example to use, since the issue at hand involves measurements that are not co-located. Firecrackers that go off simultaneously according to an observer in one frame will not be seen as going off simultaneously in other frames if the firecrackers are separated. If they are separated, “both firecrackers go off [at] the same time” is not a blanket statement you can make. It is always frame-dependent.

Success is subjective, though some try to make it objective. The question is insufficiently defined. As iNow had described.

If you aren’t ignoring it, please show me where QM requires the signal you insist is present. Not your personal unsupported opinion, mind you. You really have no clue about relativity and simultaneity, too.

! Moderator Note No, in YOUR OWN thread about entanglement. Responses to speculations need to be mainstream science, not other speculation.

! Moderator Note Such speculation should go in its own thread

The kinetic energy of the inner state electrons is a reasonable fraction of the mass energy. p^2/2m is no longer a reasonable approximation. The energy level (where KE = 1/2 |PE|) depends on Z^2

As I said, it's a relativistic correction to the energy levels. That's it. There's no Bohr-atom extrapolation to the speed (which is an overused crutch, common in undergrad explanations), or relativistic mass invocation.

You keep explaining these details as if the people in the thread are not aware of them. The part you keep ignoring is that this "suggestion" does not come from QM, but from notions being applied from other parts of physics. Much like the conventional wisdom that all waves require a medium, and thus an aether must exist. But that idea was abandoned because the data did not support it, and we had a theory that did not require it. QM has other examples of phenomena that exist that do not require an explicit interaction. The Pauli exclusion principle, for example, which e.g. leads to degeneracy pressure. That fermions can't occupy the same quantum state and bosons can doesn't arise from some interaction, but the allowable behavior for identical particles and the details of their wave function (symmetric vs antisymmetric). And yet this allows atoms to exist and prevents them from collapsing under gravitational pressure, up to a point. But there is no interaction in play.