Qbasicnews.com

But 50 - 41 = 9, and that's a digit in my age (and he had the "4" right), so Blitz was still close. Agamemnus, if you had posted that URL at the outset, 1) we could've avoid most of your confuscations, 2) I could've pointed out then that you had simply stepped in something that you weren't ready to step in yet (you need a special pair of boots), 3) I could've pointed out that it might not be a good idea for you to believe everything you read there either, and 4) it would have been clear what the context of "communication" was. As it was, without that context, all I could do was make the logical assumption that you were using the word in its conventional usage. The "communication" mentioned in that article has nothing to do with what just about anyone would logically have assumed the word meant. Did you read the last paragraph in that article? It summarizes what I've been trying to tell you.

Articles like that have no business on the internet. Your reading that article and trying to learn something from it is as absurd, but maybe not quite as dangerous, as going to "WebMD", reading something, and then trying to perform surgery on yourself. What you did was stumble across 1) another of Einstein's failed arguments against quantum mechanics and 2) the fact that physicists aren't quite done making relativity and quantum mechanics "get along with each other."

Oh, Blitz, you spelled "physicist" fine. (But if you had started it with an "f", you would've been in good company. )

It wasn't in the article, it was in a book. So I looked for EPR experiment, which I did mention. And I mentioned what the last paragraph said too, several times...

And Blitz, you're not in this conversation, so get lost and tell everyone else how much better you are at programming than I am, since you know so much.

The only thing I recall you saying in regard to not being exploitable was in regard to something about the spin flip being random. That has nothing to do with why whatever phenomena is involved there (if real) is useless for communication.

I don't even have so say that ag, a 4 year old kid would understand that. So i don't have to say that to anyone. It's a well known fact.

"The only thing I recall you saying in regard to not being exploitable was in regard to something about the spin flip being random. That has nothing to do with why whatever phenomena is involved there (if real) is useless for communication."

Well, Glenn, you're wrong. (and you didn't give me the reason of uselessness, by the way, in the first place) That's exactly what the last paragraph says.

its uselessness, over and over again. That last paragraph was the simplest statement in that article and it's just one more thing that you didn't understand about it.

.........

Yet, because the measurement outcomes were random, this principle only working for unobserved particles, this didn't provide a method of faster-than-light communications people could exploit. Thus, many physicists do not accept this as proof that nature communicates faster than light, but rather merely as an indication that quantum mechanics is "nonlocal", although such a concept is hard to understand.

I retract and apologize for my last statement to you. But there's still a bigger reason why it would be unexploitable.

i wouldn't know what that bigger reason is, but I now see that any mention of this experiment is utterly stupid (or the experiment itself), as it brings no insight into anything whatsoever.

Trying to mix relativity with *how* quantum mechanical processes occur is just absurd. (Einstein would have known better if not for his almost religious bias against quantum mechanics.) But the bigger reason for it being useless is what I've said a few times. Even if somehow the spin flip was instantaneous (which I don't believe), there's no way that someone observing it could become aware of the spin flip instantaneously.