A simplified explanation of quantum pseudo-telepathy

[Linkey]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy
 

Quote

The prefix pseudo refers to the fact that quantum pseudo-telepathy does not involve the exchange of information between any parties. Instead, quantum pseudo-telepathy removes the need for parties to exchange information in some circumstances.

I want to understand this phrase, and here is a simple explanation. Let's consider Alice and Bob are playing a card game like bridge. This game has a random element - each of the player deals the cards. Consider this game is played on a computer, and for random dealing of the cards, a pseudo random numbers generator is used. And Alice and Bob can make a deal that they use the same PRNG, so when Alice sees what random numbers she gets - she will know what numbers will Bob get. They can use this information for cooperating against other players.
Another example: in many tasks the PRNGs are used, and to avoid their disadvantages, a RNG can be created which uses some astronomical data, maybe some random numbers from quasars (sorry if this is an improper example). And then several people can use the same quasar RNG so they will know that some other people will get the same numbers as they.
Is this explanation correct?

[Mordred]

Well I was thinking this would belong more in Speculation however there is actual research papers on the topic. Wiki does a very poor job explaining it by the way.

"Quantum Pseudo-Telepathy"

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407221

Haven't studied it yet but figured the article would prove useful 

[MigL]

Random number generators are not random; they do eventually repeat.
The example you describe uses that mathematical knowledge to predict which 'random' number will come up next.

If that is pseudo-telepathy, then this belongs in pseudo-science.
 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

Is this explanation correct?

No, it is not. Your examples do not employ quantum entanglement.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, it is not. Your examples do not employ quantum entanglement.

Quantum entanglement could possibly be simulated if the proper correlations are in place. 

--

My reading of this is that the description is a little deceptive. There is no exchange of information after the fact, but the basis for measurement is agreed upon beforehand, which is information of a sort. It's just not information about the state of the particles.

That's something entanglement allows that would permit instantaneous decisions without communication - we measure our entangled particles and if Alice measures spin up, she takes course of action A and if it's down she does B. Similarly for Bob. The information was shared beforehand so there's no superluminal communication. The actual decision isn't made until measurement, is still random, and the actions are correlated.

[Mordred]

It's an interesting thought experiment and I for one thank @Linkey for bringing it up as it's the first time I have heard of this. My take on the paper is that the author is rather clear that no causation is involved nor does it allow any FTL communication. What the author refers to as psuedo-telepathy

I took to be a descriptive of as "seeming to involve communication". 

 

[MigL]

Ok, so this is the telepathic magic trick ?

Bob a nd Alice are separated by a distance.
Bob tells Alice he is going to measure a direction, and transmit the information to Alice 'telepathically'.
He measures a spin up, and 'telepathically' communicates this information to Alice.
Alice measures the spin of her entangled particle as down, and having received the 'telepathic' message from Bob, she knows that his spin is up.
Alice then posts that Bob's spin is up, as she has received the 'telepathic' message.

Is that what we are mow calling telepathy ?
It might even fool Penn and Teller.
( yes, my niece was on that show, and she fooled them )