A reminder: this is based on what i've read years ago, with the brains
   of a high schooler...
   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.
   9:45 AM, August 5, 2016, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>:

     On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:19:19AM +0200, Bastiani Fortress wrote:

         As i can remember, the point was when two particles are
     entangled,
         they bear the same quantum state, and they simultaneously shift
         their states önce either of them is "observed".

     And if you 'observe' at the other side, you can determine that the
     first
     side was already observed. Apparently.
     Which is 1 bit (perhaps 1/2 a bit) of data transfer.
     If this is not the case, then the descriptions on this list so far
     are
     ambiguous to the point of not being interpretable... which would be
     unfortunate.
     I think someone's gonna have to try explaining again..

         So you know that the other twin is in the same state, but you
         cannot code it at will, and since you don't know its first state
         without having "observed" it, you cannot determine whether the
         other twin has been observed or not (that would be 1 bit of data
         streaming). This is what i remember from what i read years ago,
         please correct me if i'm wrong.
         5:11 AM, August 5, 2016, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
           On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:29:07 +1000
           Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
            On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:58:11PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
            > From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
            > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC)
            > jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
            > > If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then
     some
            > > information must be being transmitted. If no information
     is
            > > being transmitted, then by definition, there's no way to
            > > measure
            > > speed and the claim makes no sense.
            > Well, that's the problem. Knowing that SOMETHING is being
            > transmitted, and actuallyUSING that method to transmit
     useful
            > information, are (quite strangely) two differentthings.
     That, also
            > is the amazing implications of entangled photons.
            It does sound like the obvious is being missed - so entangled
     photon
            paris can be created, and we can know at one end, if the
     photon at the
            other end is "read", and this apparently happens at at a
     minimum of
            10k.c;
            Surely, one could simply create a suitably large number of
     entangled
            photon pairs, as an array, and then read them, or not read
     them, at
            the end you want to "send" information from, and "detect" (so
     this
            weird quantum mechanics story goes) those reads at the other
     end.
            Read + Not read = 1 bit.
            What seems to be implied in the stories so far is that the
     information
            must be transmitted through changing states of a single
     entangled
            photon
            - which assumption makes no sense at all. There's a purported
            phenomena, use it!
                   Yep. It either works or not. And if it works you
     should be able
                   to get some 'macroscopic' result/data transmission (of
     course
                   the micro/macro divide is just pseudo-scientific,
     absurd
                   bullshit)
                   I don't know if it works or not, though I notice that
     Cari
                   posted a source claiming
                   "Everyone agrees that quantum entanglement does not
     allow
                   information to be transmitted faster that light. "
                   I take that to mean that the authorities don't
     actually agree,
                   although perhaps the majority says : no.
                   Regardless, if there is something propagates at faster
     than
                   light speed, then it should be possible to send
     information
                   using that AND there would be nothing absurd about
     that,
                   contrary to Jim B's abssurd defense of absurd, pseudo
                   cientific 'interpretations'.
                   http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t
                   "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue"
                   It should be self-evident that absurdities have no
     place in
                   science or even in philosophy.
            What are we missing here?
         --
         You’re not from the Castle, you’re not from the village, you are
     nothing. Unfortunately, though, you are something, a
         stranger.

     --
     Free Australia: www.UPMART.org
     Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly
     warranted.

   --
   You’re not from the Castle, you’re not from the village, you are
   nothing. Unfortunately, though, you are something, a stranger.