A reminder: this is based on what i've read years ago, with the brains of a high schooler...<br /><br />You don't know the initial state. When you make an observation at the two sides, you *magically* see that two particles are at the same state. Quantum stuff don't come in absolutes, you're thinking in terms of classical mechanics. You don't know if the cat is dead unless you open the box and "observe". Unless you do it, you assume a collection of possibility of states.<br /><br />9:45 AM, August 5, 2016, Zenaan Harkness &lt;zen@freedbms.net&gt;:<br /><blockquote>On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:19:19AM +0200, Bastiani Fortress wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote>    As i can remember, the point was when two particles are entangled,<br />    they bear the same quantum state, and they simultaneously shift<br />    their states önce either of them is "observed".<br /></blockquote><br />And if you 'observe' at the other side, you can determine that the first<br />side was already observed. Apparently.<br /><br />Which is 1 bit (perhaps 1/2 a bit) of data transfer.<br /><br />If this is not the case, then the descriptions on this list so far are<br />ambiguous to the point of not being interpretable... which would be<br />unfortunate.<br /><br />I think someone's gonna have to try explaining again..<br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>    So you know that the other twin is in the same state, but you<br />    cannot code it at will, and since you don't know its first state<br />    without having "observed" it, you cannot determine whether the<br />    other twin has been observed or not (that would be 1 bit of data<br />    streaming). This is what i remember from what i read years ago,<br />    please correct me if i'm wrong.<br /><br />    5:11 AM, August 5, 2016, juan &lt;juan.g71@gmail.com&gt;:<br /><br />      On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:29:07 +1000<br />      Zenaan Harkness &lt;zen@freedbms.net&gt; wrote:<br /><br />       On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:58:11PM +0000, jim bell wrote:<br />       &gt; From: juan &lt;juan.g71@gmail.com&gt;<br />       &gt; On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC)<br />       &gt; jim bell &lt;jdb10987@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:<br />       &gt; &gt; If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then some<br />       &gt; &gt; information must be being transmitted. If no information is<br />       &gt; &gt; being transmitted, then by definition, there's no way to<br />       &gt; &gt; measure<br />       &gt; &gt; speed and the claim makes no sense.<br />       &gt; Well, that's the problem. Knowing that SOMETHING is being<br />       &gt; transmitted, and actuallyUSING that method to transmit useful<br />       &gt; information, are (quite strangely) two differentthings. That, also<br />       &gt; is the amazing implications of entangled photons.<br />       It does sound like the obvious is being missed - so entangled photon<br />       paris can be created, and we can know at one end, if the photon at the<br />       other end is "read", and this apparently happens at at a minimum of<br />       10k.c;<br />       Surely, one could simply create a suitably large number of entangled<br />       photon pairs, as an array, and then read them, or not read them, at<br />       the end you want to "send" information from, and "detect" (so this<br />       weird quantum mechanics story goes) those reads at the other end.<br />       Read + Not read = 1 bit.<br />       What seems to be implied in the stories so far is that the information<br />       must be transmitted through changing states of a single entangled<br />       photon<br />       - which assumption makes no sense at all. There's a purported<br />       phenomena, use it!<br /><br />              Yep. It either works or not. And if it works you should be able<br />              to get some 'macroscopic' result/data transmission (of course<br />              the micro/macro divide is just pseudo-scientific, absurd<br />              bullshit)<br />              I don't know if it works or not, though I notice that Cari<br />              posted a source claiming<br />              "Everyone agrees that quantum entanglement does not allow<br />              information to be transmitted faster that light. "<br />              I take that to mean that the authorities don't actually agree,<br />              although perhaps the majority says : no.<br />              Regardless, if there is something propagates at faster than<br />              light speed, then it should be possible to send information<br />              using that AND there would be nothing absurd about that,<br />              contrary to Jim B's abssurd defense of absurd, pseudo<br />              cientific 'interpretations'.<br />              http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t<br />              "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue"<br />              It should be self-evident that absurdities have no place in<br />              science or even in philosophy.<br /><br />       What are we missing here?<br /><br />    --<br />    You’re not from the Castle, you’re not from the village, you are nothing. Unfortunately, though, you are something, a<br />    stranger.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />-- <br />Free Australia: www.UPMART.org<br />Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />-- <br />You’re not from the Castle, you’re not from the village, you are nothing. Unfortunately, though, you are something, a stranger.