John Clark wrote:
> Mike Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wrote:
> > The question though, John, is whether you can use two hunks of BEC
> > (which obviously have an observable rest state) as entangled items, thus
> > each can act as a speaker for the other's needle. Bump one, and you've
> > bumped the other.
> Two coins are entangled quantum mechanically, I have one, you a billion
> light years away have the other. I flip my coin 10 times, like any coin I have
> no control over how it lands. I get THHTHTTHTH and think " yes, that sequence
> looks pretty random". At the same time a billion light years away you flip your coin
> ten times and get THHTHTTHTH and think "yes, that sequence looks pretty random".
> I get into my spaceship and head for your house at 99% the speed of light.
> A billion years later we meet and I tell you my sequence and you tell me yours, and
> it is only then that we know the coins have been instantly and powerfully influencing
> each other, but there is no way to use that fact to exchange information.
This is true, but you didn't get my point. If two quantum entangled
objects have a rest state, and only are flipped when a person decides to
flip them, then it doesn't matter how the flip lands, the act of
flipping is conveying information to the other end: that the coin is
being flipped (or not).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT