Quantum Entanglement: At least 10, 000x faster than c, the speed of light in a vacuum.

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 09:56:24AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 09:23:22PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >     On Sunday, April 29, 2018, 12:48:31 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:  
> >  
> >  On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 19:27:01 +0000 (UTC)
> > jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >>  https://newatlas.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/
> > >> ×
> > >> If the effects of QE were equated to ordinary communication, they
> > >> would have to travel at least 10,000x faster than light. 
> > 
> > >    soooo -  you can transmit (information) at faster than light
> >   >  speed? 
> > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately not, as odd as that may sound.    QE conspires, somehow, preventing it from being used for communication faster than 1 c.
> >                       Jim Bell  
> 
> 'Tis a trifle - just wait for QE2…
> 
> QE only "conspires" because we're not yet conceptualizing quantum
> subspace properly - this is not just resonance, which is mostly how
> current humans/ quantum physicists, think.
> 
> QE is almost a displaced (or time dilated or what have you) soliton -
> and at the quantum particle level, everything is energy masquerading
> as pseudo-physical solitons/ wavicles.
> 
> Next, from "entanglement" of one soliton, or two solitons that look
> entangled, imagine three, with the third in subspace or some other
> dimension (perhaps, and perhaps necessarily, time).  I don't yet know
> enough math to explain it better, but the future calls...
> 
> "Our" thinking on the speed of sound as an abolute limit used to be a
> "known fact" (just like the flat Earth at the center of the Church's
> universe).
> 
> Exactly --when-- we figure this out though, could be a some ways into
> the future.


Some visual science feasting:


Macro double slit experiments with silicon oil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

Original souble slits for the reminder - create your reality indeed
:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAj7S6ko9Q


The D-Wave computer and parallell universii:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy3mvjr92KY


Easily make quarks in back yard pool :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=909o_kbCdFg

Solitons in yer fish tank, and why are quarks the only components of
matter that we know of that forms solitons when we try to separate
them/ untrap them from their protons (another million dollar prize)?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ederft9dkag

Solitons and ships in channels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D14QuUL8x60


Which is more complicated - Newtonian or Quantum math?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiuwtaprFjk


Exploring the border/limit between quantum and classical states:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASw4q9TyYNo


What quantum computers can (currently) do¦

 The easier math:
 https://plus.maths.org/content/really-how-do-quantum-computers-work

 Some more complex stuff (but less math to read):
 https://plus.maths.org/content/what-can-quantum-computers-do
   That looks good for quantum computing, but in this field few
   things are certain. "In complexity theory it's notoriously
   difficult to prove that a given task cannot be solved in
   polynomial time," says Jozsa. "That's an embarrassing fact." Only
   because nobody knows of a polynomial-time algorithm for number
   factoring, this doesn't mean that there isn't one, waiting to be
   discovered. "It's not at all out of the question that some bright
   number theorist will come along next week and do it," says Jozsa.
   "That will be a bit of a dampener for quantum computing."
   …
   At this point we should acknowledge the central burning issue of
   complexity theory: that none of this can be proven. Not only do we
   not know whether quantum computers can solve NP complete problems
   efficiently, we don't even know that ordinary computers can't
   solve them efficiently. Just as there may be a polynomial-time
   algorithm to factor numbers which hasn't been discovered yet, so
   there may also be polynomial-time algorithms for other NP
   problems, including NP complete ones. If there are, then our
   hierarchy of classes collapses: the P class, the NP class and the
   NP complete class turn out to be one and the same. If you can
   prove or disprove that P equals NP, you will win yourself a
   million dollars from the Clay Mathematics Institute: it's deemed
   one of the seven most intriguing open questions in maths.

   So what will quantum computers do?

   If the theory leaves us on shaky ground, what can we say about
   practical uses of quantum computing? Problems in the P class might
   be "easy" in a theoretical sense, but they can still take a very
   long time to solve. Can quantum computing help here?

   The answer is yes. An example is a "needle-in-a-haystack" problem
   ...


Older soliton lecture, ~1hr, discover also instantons:

 Three-dimensional solitons
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkmpH5moov4