As I told you, that's just one (albeit popular) interpretation - there are others that don't involve superluminal 'transfer'.
The *only* thing that current cosmology theory has going for it at the moment is the fact that it's "popular", certainly not because astronomers can demonstrate their claims in the lab in controlled experiments.
You can't just handwave away the idea based on the fact that "alternative" expanations might exist. There are plenty of alternatives to exotic matter claims including ordinary plasma and MOND theory.
I also explained that if quantum state information is transferred instantaneously, that doesn't involve classical information transfer - it can't be used the way you suggest,
I'm not suggesting that we personally can transfer information that way yet, I'm simply noting there's a faster than light speed mechanism that is proposed (and experimented with) in QM.
[/quote]
and you still have to send the particles to their prospective communicators at
c or less. Nothing has changed since I last explained this.[/quote]
The particle flow itself is constant, perhaps eternal too, and nothing has changed since our last conversation.
Nope; I'm not expecting any empirical evidence. Check the links below.
I don't need to; the burden of proof is yours - if you want your idea to be more than fantasy.
LOL. The so called "burden of proof" which is used in astronomy is not the same as the burden that you're trying to impose on me personally, or more specifically trying to impose on the entire topic of God. Mainstream "science" is not only *incapable* of even demonstrating their proposed 'mechanisms' in the lab as you require, they certainly do not know how to 'control' anything, or have the ability to control anything related to their cause/effect claims! Give me a break. You're asking for more than *any* cosmology theory requires.
You're not only requiring that the proposed mechanism must be *demonstrated*, you're also requiring me personally to control it!
Double standard much?
I'm not demanding anything of you. I'm telling you that for your idea to be taken seriously, it needs to conform to the laws of physics as currently understood.
Taken seriously? By whom? Mainstream astronomers? Since when did they ever abide by such lab demonstrated standards? Why should I take them seriously to start with when they can't demonstrate even their proposed *mechanisms* in any of the four instances where they evoke such mechanisms? Come on. You're not using the same standards of evidence that are used in science in the first place.
You've demonstrated nothing but a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum entanglement.
Pure nonsense. I'm simply noting that a proposed faster than C mechanism, and the effect itself isn't shy around the lab. In fact it's been measured to be at least 10,000 times faster than C. I didn't claim that we personally could currently transmit information faster than C, but I can't logically rule out that possibility for all time, and for all forms of intelligence.
Worse yet, you never even demonstrated it's necessary in the first place.
Some interpretations effectively treat entanglement as a joint superposition of two complementary pairs of entangled particles (e.g. a superposition of [particle A with spin-up entangled with particle B with spin-down] and [particle X with spin-down entangled with particle Y with spin-up]). Making a measurement (resolving the entanglement) decides which entangled pair of particles you're dealing with. 'Decides' above, may be deterministic or random, depending on the interpretation - for example for the '
Many Worlds' interpretation, it's deterministic (both entangled pairs are measured & resolved).
Ya know...
It seems to me that since we can play with this effect in the lab, and our technology is still evolving, many options are yet to be explored in terms of not only being able to "measure" the quantum state of the photon, but also alter it "slightly" from other photons with the hope of inducing a reaction in the entangled particle. A large change might break the entanglement, but a smaller, subtler change might not.
I really have no idea how you can logically rule out what might be possible in the future if in fact the 'popular' interpretation of entanglement is correct.
There's no need to refute it, you simply misunderstood what it's about.
I haven't "misunderstood' anything. I simply handed you a physically demonstrated 'mechanism' in QM that is presumed to occur at a minimum of 10,000 times faster than C. How it might be used in the future in terms of communication isn't certain, even if you personally think so.
That's all well and good but I wasn't suggesting that I, or we yet have the ability to communicate at faster than C, but I can't preclude that possibility for a being that might have existed for all time. For all I know a subtle change in one photon might have a measurable effect on the other entangled photons too in future experiments. What I cannot do is rule out the possibility of FTL processes, and even the mainstream doesn't rule them out, or there would be no such thing as "space expansion" or "dark energy".
From my perspective, you want to have your cake and eat it too, and decide for yourself what's possible and impossible.
I'm not even deviating from empirical lab tested standards of evidence in terms of proposing mechanisms in nature that are not limited to C. How such mechanisms of nature might be used by a potentially infinite and eternal being is beyond my ability to predict with absolute certainty, and beyond yours too.
What's ironic from my perspective is that you're all "riled up" over that *one* claim which remains to be demonstrated in controlled experimentation, but there are *four* such undemonstrated claims in the popular "scientific" theory. You therefore *cannot* be using "scientific" standards of evidence in terms of cosmology theories.
