MigL

You do understand that entangled systems of quantum particles are solely represented by one common wave function, don't you ? That is what non-realism means. They are simply a probability distribution, until the entanglement is broken by observation/interaction. No signal is required; the quantum particles simply take the states predicted by the collapsed wave function. That is where the correlation 'resides; no need to transmit anything. Statements like the one you made above, lead me to believe you don't really have a grasp of QM. And you certainly don't have a grasp of SR. Stop re-posting the same quotes over and over, and repeating the same assertions. Present some evidence.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it, and I have to agree with Joigus ( and Eise and Swansont ). A single quantum particle is neither here nor there, nor anything at all 'realistic' until a measurement/interaction is made. Where is the 'realism' ? But more importantly, in regards to your assertion, where is the non-locality for that single quantum particle, which you claim produces the non-realism ????

Non-realism and non-locality achieve the same results in explaining QM effects like entanglement. Yet you agree that we have no realism. So why do we need non-locality, if we already have non realism to explain the behavior ? If you wish to pursue the non-locality idea, you had better come up with a solid theory as to what this non-local signaling' entails. How it is transmitted superluminally. How it violates relativity, especially SR, in deciding which interaction comes first to cause the other. And many more. ( haven't heard these kinds of arguments since discussing the aether ) I await your explanations and evidence, not just repeats of your previous posts.

The Liquor Store sells it pretty cheap, and it's available when you want it. No mess, no fuss. And it tastes better ...

Depending on the distance to the nuclear detonation that produces the EMP, conduction and 'free' electrons are easily driven out of wiring/conductors, batteries/capacitors, integrated circuits, etc. Why would anyone think a Faraday cage of lesser thickness would suffice ? And if a Faraday cage is composed of pieces that are not electrically connected to each other ( like two cookie sheets ), the pieces act as antenna/re-radiators, not a shield. Keep your baking sheets and biscuit tins for cookies.

No, they can NOT ! They do not have a state to 'swap' from.

I would think that you need a character to represent the root of -1. The character i doesn't seem like a bad choice, but j would hace done just as well. And calling such numbers complex is aso practical, although 'strange' or 'unreal' would have also been fine. But you do need to represent the root of -1 somehow ...

Transistors are very simple, they are basically just on/off switches. However, if you put a bunch of them together, you can form gates. And a bunch of gates together, with multiple inputs, and multiple outputs, does begin to resemble cellular structures.

Furthermore ( since you actually seem interested in this ), this common wave-function, describing the system of entangled particles, is not a wave of anything "real', like a water wave, or pressure waves, or even EM waves. The best we can say about it, is that it is an indication of probability; the mod of the probability amplitude, squared, is a representation of the probability density. Does not seem 'real' to me, yet some argue that it is all 'real', and facilitated by faster than light, non-local signalling.

Said like a person who will be warm this winter. A lot of Europe will not. I perfectly understand the reasons for looking at all types of energy sources to get through difficult times, but they need to be brought quickly online, and Methane extraction from the North Sea coal beds seems too 'long term' to be of any use this winter , or the next decade's winters. Those kinds of investments are better made into non-fossil energy sources and renewables

Information, according to Relativity is constrained to stransfers equal to, or less than, the speed of light. Are you saying Relativity is wrong ? No, they did not demonstrate the 'reality of non-locality'. They demonstrated the absence of local realism. You can twist and bend that as much as you like, but they are NOT equivalent.

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.

In addition, whereas a classical particle 'sees' a well defined trajectory, governed by space-time curvature in GR, a quantum particle 'sees' an infinite number of probable trajectories, governed by 'probability amplitudes' derived from its wave function in QM. One is 'externally' constrained, the other, 'internally' constrained by its probability distribution. Very different models.

But observations and experiments are ...

Over 2000 nuclear explosions since 1945. A large number above ground. The Earth is still habitable. I don't mean to make light of the situation or possibility, but quit being such a pessimist 🙂 . ( I'll take my chances; I don't want to be at ground 0 )

At the same instant in time ? You mean imultaneously ? "According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space." From Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia

As a Physicist, I consider Math a set of tools that I can use to build models, that explain and make predictions about the workings of the universe. Learning the use of these tools by going 'up through the grades', would be equivalent to learning how to use your hammer and saw to initially make a bookshelf. Then framing a shed or garage, until you are finally proficient enough to frame a house. Going 'through topics' would be equivalent to taking a tool type, such as a table saw to cut lumber, a band saw to cut wood shapes, a chainsaw to cut trees, etc., and becoming proficient in all saw types before switching to another tool type. What do you want to do with your tools ?

Ice cubes in scotch ? That's worse than a blend.

You are considering the entangled particles and the wave function to be separate entities. They are not. Before the 'first' spin detection of the particle that fixes the spin orientation of the second particle, while entanglement persists, there are no particles, just their common wave function. That is what is meant by 'abandoning local realism'. As for my previous question and Wiki quote, I notice you again read just the parts that suit your narrative. The pertinent part was If you can't know which comes first, how can you determine which sends the 'magical' signal to the other ? Do they both ? Does neither ? This 'magical' signal is becoming more and more like the 'aether'. So many conflicting properties, no evidence, and definitely not needed.

Whoa, take'er easy there, Pilgrim. I have seen"the man who shot Liberty Valence" many times. Here are a selection of quotes from the movie ... The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - Wikiquote The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) - Quotes - IMDb Perhaps you can find your 'quote' for me, or pull up a You Tube clip ? ( always glad to be a secondary issue )

I probably wasn't very clear. But I found this reference on Wiki which explains better than I did ... "The distance and timing of the measurements can be chosen so as to make the interval between the two measurements spacelike, hence, any causal effect connecting the events would have to travel faster than light. According to the principles of special relativity, it is not possible for any information to travel between two such measuring events. It is not even possible to say which of the measurements came first. For two spacelike separated events x1 and x2 there are inertial frames in which x1 is first and others in which x2 is first. Therefore, the correlation between the two measurements cannot be explained as one measurement determining the other: different observers would disagree about the role of cause and effect. (In fact similar paradoxes can arise even without entanglement: the position of a single particle is spread out over space, and two widely separated detectors attempting to detect the particle in two different places must instantaneously attain appropriate correlation, so that they do not both detect the particle.)" From Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia

The Uncertainty Principle is a 'feature' of all wave-like systems. Quantum Mechanics does not allow for simultaneusly accurate determination of conjugate variables, like position and momentum. Time and energy are another pair that follow the HUP. See here Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia.

I would also like a question answered ... I brought it up previously, but it was dismissed. Assume Bob and Alice are in two different frames, separated by large distance. Bangstrom confidently says that Bob makes the first measurement, and a 'signal' then determines Alice's measurement. Special Relativity tells us that there may be a question as to who made the measurement first, as they can only compare their measurements much later. Is this 'signal' then, frame dependant ? Does it travel from Bobs frame to Alice's, when he has made the first measurement in his frame ? And does it travel from Alice's frame to Bob's when she has made the first measurement in her frame ? This is indeed a 'magical' signal. Makes one suspend belief in reality between the two measurements. Which is exactly what we've been telling you !

That has nothing to do with ignorance or knowledge, Peterkin. Until kids reach high school, or get a phone, the parents are their biggest influencers. Once they get to high school, or get a smart phone, their friends, social contacts, and idiots on YouTube become their biggest influencers. You better make sure they are 'grounded' ( confident, respectful and sensible ) before they get to that age

I always thought the 'observer effect' was related to the fact that any observation is an interaction with the system being observed, and would necessarily 'alter' the observation by disturbing that system.. QM is, to borrow a thought from another thread, based on the fact that the quantum domain has no reality ( as we know it ) until we force it to, by making an observation ( interaction ). The HUP is a more concrete effect, that dictates the accuracy to which we can know certain related observables, and is built into the mathematical formulation of a quantum system. It is not dependant on our technical ability to measure accurately, nor is it based on whether we make a 'proxy' measurement or disturb the system with the measurement.