crowded quantum information

[bangstrom]

4 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Didn't Hensen's 2015 experiment* show that the state of Bob's electron is correlated with the final state of Alice's electron after she measures two mutually non-commuting properties (spin states along different axes), even though (a) the state of Bob's electron must have been correlated with the intermediate state of Alice's electron between the two measurements she made, and (b) the final measurements were made at spacelike intervals?

Henson’s experiments were made beyond light-like which means they were made beyond the reach of a light signal in order to close ‘locality loop’. In reverse of the usual practice, the emitters were beyond reach of a light signal with a single detector near but not exactly in the center.

I am not confident enough to describe how Henson’s experiment works except to say that it involves a single photon detector to detect photons from two stationary sources that contain entangled electrons embedded in a diamond material. When illuminated by a laser, the diamonds emit streams of photons and vary rarely they emit a pair of entangled photons from a pair of entangled electrons. One photon simultaneously from two remote sources.

A coincidence detector identifies the entangled photons and sends a ‘ring’ signal to the detector to start recording for a narrow window of time when the photons arrive. As I recall the spin states of the electrons is interpreted from the interference pattern of the photons since the photons are also entangled with the electrons. It’s complicated.

4 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I'm struggling to fit that into the socks-and-widows analogy.

 Don't bother, the socks don't fit the widows.

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by bangstrom
moved a paragraph

[joigus]

12 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I agree that your example shows compatible observables. I’ll see if I understand compatible and incompatible by modifying your example slightly by using an observable “owner of exactly two pets” instead of the observable “homeless”:

Alice and Bob are married and together they own two pets, a cat Charlie and a dog Dave. Alice and Charlie travel together to a remote location. Bob and Dave stay together at home. Assume we are observers staying with Bob and Dave and we are allowed to observe one random event; the death of Bob or Dave. We have two possible outcomes:

1. Bob dies: This means the marriage ends; if Alice is alive she is now a widow and not married. But we do not know, and can’t know, if Alice owns exactly two pets. The observable “owner of exactly two pets” is “in superposition”* since we do not know if Charlie the cat is alive. 
2. Dave dies: This means that Bob’s marriage is in “superposition”; we do not know if he is a widower or a husband since we do not know if Alice is alive. But we know for sure that he does not own exactly two pets at this time. He can own one or zero, but not exactly two. If Alice is alive and well she is also is also affected she is now not "owner of exactly two pets". 

Some notes: There is no faster than light communication or signals. Special relativity seems to hold; Dave and Bob are close together in the same frame of reference. All observers, moving or not relative to Dave and Bob, will agree on who died first.

This is not necessarily a good analogy; main purpose if to test my understanding of compatible / incompatible observables. There are loopholes and limitations, feel free to reject or improve the analogy or my understating of incompatible observers. (I think I require some reading of the mathematics to understand this further.)

 

*) Not sure of the "superposition" is correct term here. Using "" since it is an analogy and not QM. 

I think it's interesting to try and find analogies that reproduce some of the peculiarities of QM. What I usually feel is that some analogies manage to reproduce one aspect of it, while others are good at reproducing another. But all of them generally fail at reproducing all features completely.

Incompatible questions are questions you can't ask at the same time (impossibility of simultaneous interacting measurements) and for which you cannot prepare states perfectly defined in both answers (impossibility of filtering measurements that produce definite values for both.)

After you introduced your husband and wife analogy, I started thinking of a similar extension for the analogy corresponding to another, incompatible observable. I was thinking along the terms of: When both of them got married they signed a pre-nup contract, and one of them owns a house. But for some reason the contract was ambiguous as to the ownership of real estate. So until the question is legally settled, it is not defined whether the house belongs to the family of the deceased, or to the surviving one. Something like that.

I will take more than one look at your version of the analogy, but for the time being I'll tell you that I was thinking in similar terms. Only with the undefined property being ownership over one object --or the right to use it, if you prefer. I think it gets close to the idea somehow, although the analogy becomes more and more complicated as you try to fit more aspects of actual QM.

[studiot]

32 minutes ago, joigus said:

I will take more than one look at your version of the analogy, but for the time being I'll tell you that I was thinking in similar terms. Only with the undefined property being ownership over one object --or the right to use it, if you prefer. I think it gets close to the idea somehow, although the analogy becomes more and more complicated as you try to fit more aspects of actual QM

+1

You are moving into the territory that I meant when I said

Quote

Some information is also encoded in the entanglement at that instant.

Every entanglement is different and depends partly upon the conditions of the entanglement.

Ghideon's example is classical.

But with the wife, socks, gloves and so on you need at least the information that they are married, there is a pair of socks of gloves.

Otherwise when the box of gloves is opened the discovery that it contains a right hand glove is of no extra meaning.

 

QM is no differnt in this respect, but obviously  infomation required is different.

For instance in the example Bangstom wants to avoid you know that two electrons in a hydrogen molecule are entangled, form Physics theory.

But how do you move one away from the other without interacting (observing) with one or both and destroying the entanglement ?

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by studiot

[joigus]

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

You are moving into the territory that I meant when I said

Quote

Some information is also encoded in the entanglement at that instant.

Every entanglement is different and depends partly upon the conditions of the entanglement.

Ghideon's example is classical.

But with the wife, socks, gloves and so on you need at least the information that they are married, there is a pair of socks of gloves.

Otherwise when the box of gloves is opened the discovery that it contains a right hand glove is of no extra meaning.

Yes. Thank you. Very interesting comments. +1

To me the big "mystery" is how the quantum state --or perhaps an appropriate extension of it, or more detailed understanding of it-- manages to pack in it what we perceive as classical data (the results of experiments, or how the quantum systems "decide.")

It is my feeling that there are enough clues in the formalism, to the extent that it's been developed today, for these classical data to be carried by the wave function.

But the lesson from the impossibility theorems is, perhaps, that we cannot make this connection naively. That the demand that the eigenvalues are defined inside the quantum state is too strong a requirement. This information could be stored in the quantum state through "beables," rather than "observables." Quantities that can never be observed, essentially complex in nature --more general complex operators, rather than Hermitian--, and essentially "internal" to the quantum state. Very much like John Bell once suggested, if I understood his ideas correctly.

When you look closely at the quantum formalism, you find that there is an extraordinary freedom that seems to point to a fundamentally unobservable domain: global phase, local phase (gauge ambiguity), indefinition of the measure in the Feynman path integral...

The problem is, of course, how do we formulate this "internal domain of the wave function" in terms that can be made into a falsifiable theory?

What's clearly not the path to follow, IMO, is denouncing the principles of locality and relativistic causality, as @bangstrom --deeply involved in an internal monologue, AFAICT at this point-- keeps parrotting, rather than making a case for. And the reasons are (1) There's no experimental evidence for it, and (2) There's no suggestion from the formalism that this should be the case.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

QM is no differnt in this respect, but obviously  infomation required is different.

Or/and also perhaps how the information is packed in the quantum state, like eg, in thermodynamics of state variables, cyclically: S_x(S_y,S_z), S_y(S_z,S_x), S_z(S_x,S_y); in such a way that there are no three fundamental variables of spin, but only two complex variables. I've always found fascinating how the mathematics of spin resembles the mathematics of thermodynamic variables.

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

The problem is, of course, how do we formulate this "internal domain of the wave function" in terms that can be made into a falsifiable theory?

What's clearly not the path to follow, IMO, is denouncing the principles of locality and relativistic causality

And the reasons are (1) There's no experimental evidence for it, and (2) There's no suggestion from the formalism that this should be the case.

But the current formalism is clearly incomplete, and the 2015 experiments are evidence of extra correlation one way or another. Why do you favor hidden variables so much? What if Alice keeps making repeated measurements of mutually non-commuting observables on her particle before Bob measures his? The wave function would have to be packed with a crystal ball that can foresee the future.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[joigus]

 

27 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

But the current formalism is clearly incomplete, and the 2015 experiments are evidence of extra correlation one way or another. Why do you favor hidden variables so much?

Emphasis-answered.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

This information could be stored in the quantum state through "beables," rather than "observables." Quantities that can never be observed, essentially complex in nature --more general complex operators, rather than Hermitian--, and essentially "internal" to the quantum state. Very much like John Bell once suggested, if I understood his ideas correctly.

Seems like I violated causality, because I answered your question before you asked it.

@Lorentz Jr, I know it's a lot to ask of anybody to read carefully what came before, but I already mentioned: "weaken the criterion of reality." I'll give you a pointer, if you're interested.

The theoretical environment in which similar ideas grow is "loopholes to the impossibility theorems."

Keep in mind that impossibility theorems always have premises. If you weaken the premises, you find doors to unexpected landscapes. It's happened before.

Edited November 19, 2022 by joigus
Changed "in answer to" (quote)

[Lorentz Jr]

30 minutes ago, joigus said:

Seems like I violated causality, because I answered your question before you asked it.

I don't see an answer to my question. I see a few details of your idea, but I don't see a motivation for preferring it.

Quote

"weaken the criterion of reality."

Why not just eliminate the criterion altogether? Why not just say God watches over the world and adjusts particle properties however he sees fit? How would that be any less scientific than "beables"?

Edited November 19, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[joigus]

12 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I don't see an answer to my question. I see a few details of your idea, but I don't see a motivation for preferring it.

Why not just eliminate the criterion altogether? Why not just say God watches over the world and adjusts particle properties however he sees fit? How would that be any less scientific than "beables"?

Because guessing operators more general than Hermitian being relevant to QM is a natural mathematical extrapolation of the postulates of QM, while talking about gods, demigods, and leprechauns is a mythological idiocy with no basis on, relation to, or even suggestions of QM in it.

I should think that's next-to-obvious.

Edited November 19, 2022 by joigus
minor addition

[Lorentz Jr]

48 minutes ago, joigus said:

Because guessing operators more general than Hermitian being relevant to QM is a natural mathematical extrapolation of the postulates of QM, while talking about gods, demigods, and leprechauns is a mythological idiocy with no basis on, relation to, or even suggestions of QM in it.

I should think that's next-to-obvious.

It's not obvious to me that the future of the entire universe can be packed into a wave function using any mathematical formalism that doesn't reproduce the abilities of an omniscient being. I haven't seen any experimental evidence that limits what can affect an entangled particle when its partner interacts with other physical systems.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

What if Alice keeps making repeated measurements of mutually non-commuting observables on her particle before Bob measures his?

What if she does ?

The first measurement she makes breaks the quantum  entanglement and then all bets are off.

 

Incidentally you don't seem to have acknowledged the information I offered in my welcome message on your first day.

Any reason for this ?

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

you don't seem to have acknowledged the information I offered in my welcome message on your first day.

Fixed. 🙂

Quote

What if she does ?  The first measurement she makes breaks the quantum  entanglement and then all bets are off.

Okay, my bad. I guess that's my own stupidity showing. 🙄

Edited November 19, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[joigus]

38 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

It's not obvious to me that the future of the entire universe can be packed into a wave function using any mathematical formalism that doesn't reproduce the abilities of an omniscient being. I haven't seen any experimental evidence that limits what can effect an entangled particle when its partner interacts with other physical systems.

The state of a particle does not correspond to one wave function. Rather, it is an equivalence class of infinitely many wave functions, all differing in a global relative phase.

Further, when you include gauge ambiguity, it's no longer just a global-phase ambiguity, but an infinite collection of local prescriptions for the phase that constitutes the ambiguity. This means that you can attach whatever time-position dependent factor to the wave function, add a counterterm to the gauge field, and the equations of motion are exactly the same. How are you so sure, how is anybody, that factors of this incommensurably infinite group are not relevant to a more complete description of the quantum state?

On the other hand, saying that the history of the entire universe is somehow involved in the deflection of, eg, a paramagnetic particle by a Stern-Gerlach magnet is only evidence of how misleading the ongoing blabber about non-locality has been for all these years.

Research in beables is a serious branch of theoretical physics, however much making the models falsifiable remains a challenge. Vague assumptions about omniscient agents is not.

[Lorentz Jr]

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

an equivalence class of infinitely many wave functions

Sorry about the last couple posts; I went a little overboard. I'm an unreconstructed realist in the 19th-century mold, for whatever that's worth, so I find a lot of the modern ideas horrifying. But I can't disprove anything you've said, so I'll try to keep my mouth shut for a while. Thanks for chatting.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Sorry about the last couple posts; I went a little overboard. I'm an unreconstructed realist in the 19th-century mold, but I can't disprove anything you've said, so I'll try to keep my mouth shut for a while. Thanks for chatting.

No need to apologise. I haven't found you at fault at any point. We respectfully disagree, that's all. I'm very passionate about interpretations of QM. I'm very emphatic about points I've thought about, and read about, for many years.

Sometimes, when I see what I perceive as a fundamental misunderstanding of both the facts and the theory, I take issue with it, but in no way it should be understood as hostility.

I've seen people's careers destroyed for valiently going down this particular rabbit hole, never to be seen again. It's no joke to me.

[bangstrom]

On 11/18/2022 at 5:12 AM, Eise said:

I said, an example without entanglement. Oh man...

Your question made no sense.

“Really? A real signal, i.e. transferring information (and therefore at least a minimum amount of energy)? Or will you beg the question, and will give entanglement as example? So, please, give an example of such a signal, but not concerning entanglement.”

Your question is asking for, a real signal transferring information and energy but not entanglement. That is any ordinary signal. It could be a signal with a bell or a postal letter or a signal with flags.  That can't be what your asking for.

If you are asking for a signal without a transfer of energy, I gave you one and that is entanglement. If you want a signal with entanglement and a transfer of energy, I gave you one.

If you want an example of a signal without a transfer of energy, I can't think of any example except entanglement.

And if you want an example with exactly what you asked for, I just gave you three. And this post via computer is four.

[bangstrom]

18 hours ago, studiot said:

QM is no differnt in this respect, but obviously  infomation required is different.

For instance in the example Bangstom wants to avoid you know that two electrons in a hydrogen molecule are entangled, form Physics theory.

But how do you move one away from the other without interacting (observing) with one or both and destroying the entanglement ?

Please, please don't ask me about electrons in a hydrogen molecule! I am avoiding that question like the corona.

You didn't specify what you were asking for in your question, "Can you provide an actual example of the circumstances for these two electrons ?" so I didn't know what what kind of answer you were expecting.

Why do you think I don't know there are two electrons in a hydrogen molecule and they are entangled?

The electrons in the electron clouds of all the elements are also entangled.

In ultra-cold superconducting materials, electrons circulate as entangled pairs called Cooper pairs. They are forced to quantum tunnel out of the superconductor by the application of a high voltage at which time the entangled electrons separate naturally by mutual repulsion as they leave in different directions.

https://news.softpedia.com/news/Extracting-Entangled-Electrons-from-Superconductors-124341.shtml

"Extracting Entangled Electrons from Superconductor In its experiments, the UB team used an innovative approach to mining the electrons out of the material. It created an aluminum superconductor and attached nanowires to it that could have represented the particles' way out. Ironically, the key to the entire process did not prove to be offering the electron pairs a way out, but actually preventing them from getting out. When a high voltage was applied to the nanowires, they started acting like barriers, and electrons are known to perform something called quantum tunneling when presented with such an obstacle.

The pairs essentially drill their way out through the barrier, at a very small pace, allowing the researchers to catch and isolate them as they emerge. As they exit the superconductor and the nanowires, the electrons' natural repulsion force kicks in, and the pair splits. Each nanowire has a junction, and each of the possible avenues can only house one electron. Using this method, the UB team was able to produce and then separate streams of entangled electrons"

The Henson experiment in 2015 used a similar method to obtain their entangled electrons. They started with an ultra-cold superconducting ring of graphene and allowed the separated entangled electrons to stream into opposite pieces of artificial diamond. The carbon lattice of an artificial diamond contains traces of accidental nitrogen atoms in place of carbon and the gaps between the N and C atoms creates an environment called a 'hollow' which is attracting to electrons.

This is the method they used to create a pair of diamonds containing opposite pairs of entangled electrons for their experiments in Delft. The entangled electrons are stable within the diamonds and they can be transported without disturbing the entanglement.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

You need to understand that entanglement, superposition mechanics and many other phenmomena were studied long before any quantum theory arose. In many cases quantum entanglemen can be different from classical entanglement, which @Ghideon example is.

Ghideon's example has nothing to do with entanglement. It is simply an example of changing the name of states with no

physical interactions.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

This is also the case with the example of the socks or the gloves. But they have a characteristic in common with quantum entanglement, notably that the actual states of both particles are set at the instant of entanglement. Some information is also encoded in the entanglement at that instant.

The examples with boxes of socks and gloves are strictly classical and have been invalidated by Bell and the experiments by Aspect and Clauser and Zeilinger's teleportation would not work if the analogies were true.

The idea that, "Some information is also encoded in the entanglement at that instant." implies the presence of a hidden variable. That has been debunked by the violation of Bell's inequality and double debunked by Henson et al.'s experiments in Delft.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The electrons in the electron clouds of all the elements are also entangled.

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Please, please don't ask me about electrons in a hydrogen molecule! I am avoiding that question like the corona.

You didn't specify what you were asking for in your question, "Can you provide an actual example of the circumstances for these two electrons ?" so I didn't know what what kind of answer you were expecting.

Why do you think I don't know there are two electrons in a hydrogen molecule and they are entangled?

The electrons in the electron clouds of all the elements are also entangled.

In ultra-cold superconducting materials, electrons circulate as entangled pairs called Cooper pairs. They are forced to quantum tunnel out of the superconductor by the application of a high voltage at which time the entangled electrons separate naturally by mutual repulsion as they leave in different directions.

I see.

So you fully understand superconductivity including the maths ?

I specified exactly what I was asking since you specified the said entangled pairs.

Furthermore you dodged the issue of the second electron of your pair 'knowing things' after it was unentangled, by talking about a former partner. You didn't answer my comment on this.

On 11/17/2022 at 1:12 PM, studiot said:

On 11/17/2022 at 11:16 AM, bangstrom said:

The question is, if an electron on one end of an entanglement is found to be spin-up, how does it's former partner in the entanglement instantly 'know' it should be spin-down?

It doesn't know, why should It ?

You have placed the germ of the answer in your use of 'former partner'.

Can you provide an actual example of the circumstances for these two electrons ?

 

How would you know which electron is spin up in a cooper pair, or a diamond ?

You specifically talked about separating the entangled electrons before measurement.

So I asked for real eamples of how you would achieve this separation, whilst maintaining the entanglement.

All your 'examples' in response require the entangled electrons to be maintained in their proximity, not separated.

So none of your examples are valid.

3 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The electrons in the electron clouds of all the elements are also entangled.

Why do you keep repeating this fallacious statement?

You have been told before in other threads that there are (must be) unentangled electrons in the atoms of some elements, for instance  -  since you don't like hydrogen  -  the 2s electron in Boron and the 2p electron in Aluminium are both unentangled with anything.

3 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Ghideon's example has nothing to do with entanglement. It is simply an example of changing the name of states with no

physical interactions.

You don't get to decide what entanglement is period.

I'm glad you think that dying is nothing more significant than changing the name of your state. Try it sometime.

3 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The examples with boxes of socks and gloves are strictly classical and have been invalidated by Bell and the experiments by Aspect and Clauser and Zeilinger's teleportation would not work if the analogies were true.

The idea that, "Some information is also encoded in the entanglement at that instant." implies the presence of a hidden variable. That has been debunked by the violation of Bell's inequality and double debunked by Henson et al.'s experiments in Delft.

You don't get it do you. I think that is because you read the writings of others with a closed mindset.

The information must be available to the observers (and before you claim I was not specific I gave specific examples in each case) and furthermore cannot be 'hidden' or, as swansont commented to you several thread ago, would be on no use.

Have you studied the maths (proof) of Bells ? It is not difficult.

 

Open you mind and listen to what others are telling you, you obviously know and understand some stuff and therefore have the capacity to learn more.

[Eise]

7 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Your question is asking for, a real signal transferring information and energy but not entanglement.

 Nope.

You said:

On 11/17/2022 at 8:46 AM, bangstrom said:

Different observers seeing signals going in different directions is a well understood phenomenon of SR.

For which I wanted an explanation.

Then you said:

On 11/17/2022 at 12:16 PM, bangstrom said:

Information has no energy and a signal need not be energy bearing.

And then I asked an example of information transfer, or a signal, that works without a transfer of energy and/or matter.

So maybe I was a bit confusing, but I want two examples:

1. One of "Different observers seeing signals going into different directions" and how this is "a well understood phenomenon of SR".
2. Information transfer or signal, without any energy or matter involved.

And both not using entanglement, because that would mean you are using your conclusion about entanglement as argument, with other words you would "beg the question".

And I am still waiting for a reaction on my posting:

 

[joigus]

OK, @bangstrom. Enough is enough. Take a code "0" and "1."

Describe a protocol that sends either "0" or "1" to a distant observer by using an entangled state.

Describe it clearly.

It could even be,

"0" = "I have performed a measurement"

and,

"1" = "I have not performed a measurement"

So that the distant observer knows immediately it's either "0" or "1"

Or, it could be,

"0" = "Spin is up along the x-direction"

and,

"1" = "Spin is down along the x-direction"

Or, it could be,

"0" = "I have performed a measurement along the x-direction"

and,

"1" = "I have performed a measurement along a direction other than the x-direction"

 

Describe a protocol that does this without infinitely many data having to be gathered after long hours of painstaking readings, and thereby inferring decoherence has been lost when the STL waiting time has long, long been exceeded.

Of course, most of us here understand:

(1) That's not possible

(2) If it were, SR would be violated

But you don't, you don't understand it. You're still clueless after all that's been said. So, please, stop blowing smoke once and for all and give an answer to everybody. Your last paragraphs were some more smoke-blowing and quoting news you don't understand, so I'm not even gonna bother to answer them.

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by joigus
minor addition

[joigus]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

decoherence has been lost

I meant "coherence has been lost." Sorry! I do this again and again.  

[bangstrom]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

So you fully understand superconductivity including the maths ?

I make no claims to understand all of it.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Furthermore you dodged the issue of the second electron of your pair 'knowing things' after it was unentangled, by talking about a former partner. You didn't answer my comment on this.

Is this even a question? “You have placed the germ of the answer in your use of 'former partner'.

I was waiting for you to explain what you meant.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

How would you know which electron is spin up in a cooper pair, or a diamond ?

You specifically talked about separating the entangled electrons before measurement.

So I asked for real eamples of how you would achieve this separation, whilst maintaining the entanglement.

There is no need to know anything about the spin states of a Cooper pair.

I explained how it is done with diamonds and there are articles that explain how it is done if you care to look. It is done by illuminating the diamonds with lasers and wait for them to emit a pair of entangled photons. They measure the spin state of the electrons indirectly by observing circular polarization of the photons emitted.

They measure the polarizations by an unusual method using lasers that I am not familiar with but I am looking into how it is done.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

All your 'examples' in response require the entangled electrons to be maintained in their proximity, not separated.

So none of your examples are valid.

Absolutely not. Where did you get that crazy idea?

12 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm glad you think that dying is nothing more significant than changing the name of your state. Try it sometime.

I know what isn’t entanglement when it is obvious that it isn’t.

This is why Ghideon's explanation fails the Bell test by its lack of possible anti-coordinated combinations.

If two people get married, they instantly become husband and wife at the pronouncement. But at the same pronouncement, if one is alive, the other drops dead.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Have you studied the maths (proof) of Bells ? It is not difficult.

I have studied the maths of Bell's Inequalities.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Open you mind and listen to what others are telling you, you obviously know and understand some stuff and therefore have the capacity to learn more.

I am always open to new ideas. I am open to open old ideas if I find them to be sensible and logical. But, old ideas that have been debunked for more than fifty years- not so much.

That is things things like the non-existence of non-locality (instant action at a distance) or hidden variables with entanglement.

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

If two people get married, they instantly become husband and wife at the pronouncement. But at the same pronouncement, if one is alive, the other drops dead.

Wow!

I think this second quote says it all !

5 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

Absolutely not. Where did you get that crazy idea?

 

[bangstrom]

12 hours ago, Eise said:

1. One of "Different observers seeing signals going into different directions" and how this is "a well understood phenomenon of SR".

That goes back to the old example where lightning strikes both ends a train simultaneously on both ends relative to an observer in the center. An observer at the front will say it struck the front first and an observer at the rear will say it struck the rear first. Those are examples using an energy carrying light signal that observers see differently and SR applies different directional observations to the observation of entanglement as well.

An example of a signal carrying information but not energy would be a signal involving entanglement. That is my answer and I have no other.

12 hours ago, Eise said:

1. #2 Information transfer or signal, without any energy or matter involved.

And both not using entanglement, because that would mean you are using your conclusion about entanglement as argument, with other words you would "beg the question".

Your question #2 is a koan, 先 生.  Like, What is the sound of one hand clapping”

An “Information transfer or signal, without any energy or matter involved?“ That would be a signal from nowhere yet to arrive anywhere.

 

 

[bangstrom]

12 hours ago, joigus said:

OK, @bangstrom. Enough is enough. Take a code "0" and "1."

Describe a protocol that sends either "0" or "1" to a distant observer by using an entangled state.

Describe it clearly.

This is impossible for the sender. They can’t know what they sent or describe it. A person on the sending end can generate a pair of entangled particles and send one off but they can’t know the identity of which one they sent or which one they retain. If they observe the identity of their own particle, they break the entanglement.

12 hours ago, joigus said:

So that the distant observer knows immediately it's either "0" or "1"

The receiver instantly knows if it is “0” or “1” but they can’t know what it means because even the sender can't know what they sent.
 

13 hours ago, joigus said:

Describe a protocol that does this without infinitely many data having to be gathered after long hours of painstaking readings, and thereby inferring decoherence has been lost when the STL waiting time has long, long been exceeded.

 I think you meant SLT, superluminal time.

 

All the timing data for the experiment is automatically recorded in real time at both locations and at the time of decoherence. It may be much later when the data is analyzed and it is found that the information about some property of the second entangled particle arrived before any possibility of a light signal.

A later analysis of the data can not go back in time and rewrite recorded history.

13 hours ago, joigus said:

Of course, most of us here understand:

(1) That's not possible

(2) If it were, SR would be violated

Some say that does violate SR but I say it only violates Einstein’s second postulate about nothing being faster than light. His second postulate was instrumental in formulating SR but it remains a provisional statement that is no longer supported by experimental evidence. The evidence was not available in Einsteins time but it was much speculated before his time and repeatedly proven true after. I’m just telling it like it is.

 

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 
 

I can’t wait to see what fun the next 21 pages of repeated thread will bring.