Leaderboard

@studiot is not talking about the book he referred to before. He is now making a new argument, designed to help you understand a point very similar to one I presented before: The anticorrelations are built into the state, very much like the Pythagorean theorem is built into the relations of a right triangle, for example --a similar example to the one he is proposing. He is proposing that infinitely many possible values of an angle can be associated to a given value of a trigonometric function. And that should be no surprise, nor it implies a "spooky action between angles." Nor should it be any surprise that the two non-right angles of a right triangle correlate to \( \vartheta_1 + \vartheta_2 = \pi / 2 \). Continuing on my example of the right triangle ("the speed at which the Pythagorean theorem is true is infinity"), but inspired by Studiot's example of the angles: You can take as analogues of quantum evolution the right triangles getting bigger and bigger; the analogue of the correlation, the fact that they add up to \( \pi/2 \), and the analogue of being a singlet state (scalar representation of the rotation group), the fact that the triangles evolve while keeping the geometric ratios (analogue of unitary quantum evolution as well.)

Manufacturing is one expense, and making them to fine tolerances is another. Accuracy cost money. You got the high and low tolerance meanings the wrong way. 'Low tolerance' is the high accuracy stuff.... as in having a low tolerance for errors.

Scientific realism is a philosophic position that statements (mathematical or otherwise) correspond to an objective state of affairs in the world. But that doesn't mean the statement is ontologically complete (that it provides a full account of what something IS in its inmost essence), it only means it corresponds to a measurement (perception) in a consistent way. A field is a mathematical map of how an area of space contains energy, and how forces are directed and with what strength at a given point - it's no more real than those isobar lines or wind vectors on a weather map. If it shows high wind that doesn't mean the map will blow all the papers off your desk.

Once again I can partly agree with your statement. Physics does indeed 'use' logic. But logic is not the basis or foundation of Physics, nor is it the final arbiter of any proposition in Physics. If you do not understand and appreciate this it may be why you are having conceptual difficulties in Physics. By the way you did not actually answer as to whether you appreciate and understand the difference between a Field in logic and a Field in Physics. This is fundamental since you startd by insisting that Fields have substance ("they must be made of something"). Nothing in logic has substance. Plase note these points are meant to help and make you think it out for yourself.

Also +1. And then I wanted to know from where you got that, and found one, that I am afraid, is even more realistic:

Sigh... Again you are interpreting Zeilinger wrong. And, framed by your interpretation, even @joigus gets it wrong here: No, you are reading it 'backwards'. Read precisely what Zeilinger is saying: Superdeterminism would be (reshuffling above sentence): That would mean that reality (even in the far past) has a very essential influence on our deciding which measurement to perform. Read closely, so that you see the difference. If necessary, repeat in your own words, so that we can check that you really understand that you read the original sentence backwards. In Zeilinger's own words, in its own paragraph about superdeterminism (calling it 'total determinism'): Bold by me. I mentioned that already here: And this is what the 'quasar-driven' experiment is about. Not about the choice of locality on one side, and realism on the other. Again, bangstrom, in their technical meanings as used in CHSH, not in what you would like to see as realism (non-locality implies non-realism). Zeilinger and co are very clear in their article: it is about closing the free-choice loophole, not about locality or realism. Just in case you do not notice: I boldface words in my own texts, that use these words as they are meant in their precise meanings as used by all QM authors, especially CHSH. Nope. Correlation (consistently, not accidentally) means that the events share a common history. And that is the moment that the entangled particle were produced.

Thank you @exchemist. Appreciate your response, bud

Modern 'flash' memory would probably be more easily corrupted. An EMP pulse will force electrons from the conduction and semi-conduction bands, and since SSDs store electrons in a silicon gate after being deposited there by a MOSFET, they will easily lose the charge that indicates '1' or '0'. Old style rotating platter drives, that store data in magnetic domains, especially low-density ones with larger magnetic domains, may be mor resistant.

Could you talk about movement without space? Perhaps the problem is trying to think of only one part of the spacetime continuum. Three spatial coordinates and one temporal coordinate can describe where and when any event happens.

! Moderator Note No, in YOUR OWN thread about entanglement. Responses to speculations need to be mainstream science, not other speculation.

If the armour plating on a tank or a battleship is insufficient shielding against an EMP weapon, I doubt you could shield you computer. It has been suggested that old fashioned valve technology is more resistant than modern semiconductors on account of the very much higher breakdown voltages/field strengths involved.