I was atheist before it was cool.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

How do you know lab created entanglement works the same way as nature created entanglement?

Nature created entanglement? What's that? Any evidence of it? Any evidence that it's different from entanglement as understood by physicists?

Or did you just pull out a concept out of your ass? Right.

[sploogook]

rust so mad

[Rust]

Not mad, but definitely annoyed by his dishonesty and lies. Yes.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Nature created entanglement? What's that? Any evidence of it? Any evidence that it's different from entanglement as understood by physicists?

Or did you just pull out a concept out of your ass? Right.

Do you have any evidence that I, as a human being, exist? For all you know I could be an AI program designed to argue with you about anything and everything.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Do you have any evidence that I, as a human being, exist? For all you know I could be an AI program designed to argue with you about anything and everything.

Except my argument doesn't depend on you being a human.

Now do you (human or incredibly dumb AI) have any evidence that "quantum entanglement suggests that any two particles that have at one time interacted become entangled"? Any evidence that there is a form of entanglement that supports the claim made by your source, Steve Pavlina, who claims child rape is caused by our thoughts?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Except my argument doesn't depend on you being a human.

Now do you (human or incredibly dumb AI) have any evidence that "quantum entanglement suggests that any two particles that have at one time interacted become entangled"? Any evidence that there is a form of entanglement that supports the claim made by your source, Steve Pavlina, who claims child rape is caused by our thoughts?

It's called quantum entanglement, you should look it up.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

It's called quantum entanglement, you should look it up.

Yeah, I know what it's called and what it is. That's why I know you're full of shit when you misused it. Quantum entanglement does not say the things you claim it does.

You're going to have to come misuse another scientific concept to support your horseshit.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah, I know what it's called and what it is. That's why I know you're full of shit when you misused it. Quantum entanglement does not say the things you claim it does.

You're going to have to come misuse another scientific concept to support your horseshit.

I'm trying to elucidate the idea of unity to you in a language you understand, but apparently it won't work.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I'm trying to elucidate the idea of unity to you in a language you understand, but apparently it won't work.

You're not trying to elucidate anything. You misrepresented a scientific concept to defend a quack who was insisting that child rape is caused by us thinking about child rape.

You're an embarrassment.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

You're not trying to elucidate anything. You misrepresented a scientific concept to defend a quack who was insisting that child rape is caused by us thinking about child rape.

You're an embarrassment.

I didn't misrepresent quantum entanglement. According to you it entails the interaction of two particles where both particles are described differently than they were before the interaction. The big bang qualifies as such an interaction, having changed the particles in the universe from a singularity into actual particles.

As far as you telling me I'm not trying to elucidate something to you, that is you simply being a liar. If you think I haven't been trying to convey something to you in every single one of my posts, then you clearly aren't using your brain.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I didn't misrepresent quantum entanglement. According to you it entails the interaction of two particles where both particles are described differently than they were before the interaction. The big bang qualifies as such an interaction, having changed the particles in the universe from a singularity into actual particles.

First of all, that's not the definition of entanglement. Second of all, no the big bang doesn't describe such an interaction, you liar, and even if it did that would not mean anything since entanglement wouldn't have lasted since then. Entanglement breaks easily; in fact you would break it by measuring or observation of the particles.

As far as you telling me I'm not trying to elucidate something to you, that is you simply being a liar. If you think I haven't been trying to convey something to you in every single one of my posts, then you clearly aren't using your brain.

I'd by happy to accept the fact that you were trying to do that, if it weren't for the outright lies and bullshit you keep making up to promote what you say. Lying and misrepresenting facts pretty much negates any elucidation you might be trying to make.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

First of all, that's not the definition of entanglement. Second of all, no the big bang doesn't describe such an interaction, you liar, and even if it did that would not mean anything since entanglement wouldn't have lasted since then. Entanglement breaks easily; in fact you would break it by measuring or observation of the particles.

If measuring or observing the particles broke entanglement, there would be no evidence for entanglement in the first place. The whole idea is that observing one particle causes the entangled particle to also act as if it is being observed. For example, you observe one particle spinning counter-clockwise and then you observe the entangled particle and it will be spinning clockwise. Provide some evidence that shows that the entanglement between particles is easily broken.

I'd by happy to accept the fact that you were trying to do that, if it weren't for the outright lies and bullshit you keep making up to promote what you say. Lying and misrepresenting facts pretty much negates any elucidation you might be trying to make.

I don't intentionally lie or misrepresent facts.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Do you have any evidence that I, as a human being, exist? For all you know I could be an AI program designed to argue with you about anything and everything.

This would explain a lot...

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

If measuring or observing the particles broke entanglement, there would be no evidence for entanglement in the first place. The whole idea is that observing one particle causes the entangled particle to also act as if it is being observed. For example, you observe one particle spinning counter-clockwise and then you observe the entangled particle and it will be spinning clockwise. Provide some evidence that shows that the entanglement between particles is easily broken.

Clearly, you don't understand entanglement. The act of observing the particles breaks the entanglement, however it also determines their spin to be in equal to each other (or opposite of each other in other forms of entanglement). That's correlation (i.e. once you measure X particle, Y particle will have the same spin as X) is one that wouldn't be found normally without entanglement. Without entanglement, you'd have a 50% probability that they share the same spin after measurement. With entanglement you have 100% probability.

"Quantum systems can become entangled through various types of interactions (see section on methods below). If entangled, one object cannot be fully described without considering the other(s). They remain in a quantum superposition and share a single quantum state until a measurement is made.[21]"

"In a very recent experiment, "delayed-choice entanglement swapping" has been used to decide whether two particles were entangled or not after they had already been measured"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement


Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that a physical system -- such as an electron -- exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

I don't intentionally lie or misrepresent facts.

So what do you call putting a double standard where you deliberately ignore flaws in your "evidence"? What do you call misrepresenting what entanglement entails when you had already been corrected before? What do you call claiming your religious claims couldn't be tested and then doing a 180 and claiming they could be?

Please, help me use the correct terminology. Is it you being a liar? You being dishonest? You being full of shit? What?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Clearly, you don't understand entanglement. The act of observing the particles breaks the entanglement, however it also determines their spin to be in equal to each other (or opposite of each other in other forms of entanglement). That's correlation (i.e. once you measure X particle, Y particle will have the same spin as X) is one that wouldn't be found normally without entanglement. Without entanglement, you'd have a 50% probability that they share the same spin after measurement. With entanglement you have 100% probability.

"Quantum systems can become entangled through various types of interactions (see section on methods below). If entangled, one object cannot be fully described without considering the other(s). They remain in a quantum superposition and share a single quantum state until a measurement is made.[21]"

"In a very recent experiment, "delayed-choice entanglement swapping" has been used to decide whether two particles were entangled or not after they had already been measured"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement




So what do you call putting a double standard where you deliberately ignore flaws in your "evidence"? What do you call misrepresenting what entanglement entails when you had already been corrected before? What do you call claiming your religious claims couldn't be tested and then doing a 180 and claiming they could be?

Please, help me use the correct terminology. Is it you being a liar? You being dishonest? You being full of shit? What?

It's me trying to elucidate a philosophy, theology, religion that contains the highest Truth of the universe.

[Rust]

Right. Well if that's your goal, you should keep in mind that misrepresenting scientific positions that you had already been corrected about, isn't helping anyone believe your "elucidation".

Neither is ignoring someone's points, like you did right there...

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Right. Well if that's your goal, you should keep in mind that misrepresenting scientific positions that you had already been corrected about, isn't helping anyone believe your "elucidation".

Neither is ignoring someone's points, like you did right there...

Isn't it true that the mechanism of information transfer in quantum entanglement is still a mystery considering no energy is transferred between the particles? How does information travel without energy?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Isn't it true that the mechanism of information transfer in quantum entanglement is still a mystery considering no energy is transferred between the particles? How does information travel without energy?

Normally I'd have no problem answering someone who was curious, since you've made it clear you want to change topics whenever we get to the point where we show you're wrong, I'm not going to indulge you.

If you're curious about quantum entanglement or quantum mechanics in general, make a thread in the appropriate forum. Or better yet, read the link I gave which answers your question.

---

This whole tangent of your misrepresentation of quantum entanglement aside, we were left with the fact that the law of attraction is very different than the far-fetched idea you were suggesting - i.e. that mirror neurons would make people around us feel happier if we're happy, and improve our situation. The law of attraction, according to your own source, would be responsible for rape of infants by merely us thinking negative thoughts. That's clearly not explainable by mirror neurons.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Normally I'd have no problem answering someone who was curious, since you've made it clear you want to change topics whenever we get to the point where we show you're wrong, I'm not going to indulge you.

If you're curious about quantum entanglement or quantum mechanics in general, make a thread in the appropriate forum. Or better yet, read the link I gave which answers your question.

---

This whole tangent of your misrepresentation of quantum entanglement aside, we were left with the fact that the law of attraction is very different than the far-fetched idea you were suggesting - i.e. that mirror neurons would make people around us feel happier if we're happy, and improve our situation. The law of attraction, according to your own source, would be responsible for rape of infants by merely us thinking negative thoughts.

The question I posed is actually quite relevant to this thread. How does the information travel between the two entangled particles without any sort of physical or energetic means? The wikipedia link says that this simply demonstrates the incompleteness of quantum mechanics.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

The question I posed is actually quite relevant to this thread. How does the information travel between the two entangled particles without any sort of physical or energetic means? The wikipedia link says that this simply demonstrates the incompleteness of quantum mechanics.

No, the link does not say it demonstrates the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, and it does in fact answer your question regarding the alleged transfer of information, See what I mean? You're misrepresenting the very link you were supposed to read!

Furthermore, how is it relevant to this thread? Nobody had even mentioned entanglement in this thread, aside from yourself. So what would answering your question achieve that is important to this thread?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

No, the link does not say it demonstrates the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, and it does in fact answer your question regarding the alleged transfer of information, See what I mean? You're misrepresenting the very link you were supposed to read!

Furthermore, how is it relevant to this thread? Nobody had even mentioned entanglement in this thread, aside from yourself. So what would answering your question achieve that is important to this thread?

From wikipedia: "Study of entanglement brings into sharp focus the dilemma between locality and the completeness or lack of completeness of quantum mechanics."

Can you explain it to me, since I am obviously not understanding the article, how does information travel from one particle to the other without physical or energetic means?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

From wikipedia: "Study of entanglement brings into sharp focus the dilemma between locality and the completeness or lack of completeness of quantum mechanics."

Yeah, thank you for making my point. That does not say that entanglement demonstrates the incompleteness of QM. It's saying it brings into focus the debate surrounding that issue.

As for your question:

How is it relevant to this thread? Nobody had even mentioned entanglement in this thread, aside from yourself. So what would answering your question achieve that is important to this thread?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah, thank you for making my point. That does not say that entanglement demonstrates the incompleteness of QM. It's saying it brings into focus the debate surrounding that issue.

As for your question:

How is it relevant to this thread? Nobody had even mentioned entanglement in this thread, aside from yourself. So what would answering your question achieve that is important to this thread?

Because it validates the idea that information can travel via non-physical and non-energetic means. This lends credence to the idea that the information is traveling metaphysically.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Because it validates the idea that information can travel via non-physical and non-energetic means. This lends credence to the idea that the information is traveling metaphysically.

No, it doesn't validate that at all as quantum entanglement isn't metaphysical to begin with and there's no such thing as "metaphysical travel of information" that you've demonstrated. However, since you'll predictably insist that it would (and you have no reservations about lying out of your ass), here, from the very link you should have been reading:

The outcome of Alice's measurement is random. Alice cannot decide which state to collapse the composite system into, and therefore cannot transmit information to Bob by acting on her system. Causality is thus preserved, in this particular scheme. For the general argument, see no-communication theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Let's follow that link shall we?

"
In quantum information theory, a no-communication theorem is a result which gives conditions under which instantaneous transfer of information between two observers is impossible. These results can be applied to understand the so-called paradoxes in quantum mechanics such as the EPR paradox or violations of local realism obtained in tests of Bell's theorem. In these experiments, the no-communication theorem shows that failure of local realism does not lead to what could be referred to as "spooky communication at a distance" (in analogy with Einstein's labeling of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance").
...
The no-communication theorem thus says shared entanglement alone can not be used to transmit any information. Compare this with the no teleportation theorem, which states a classical information channel can not transmit quantum information. (By transmit, we mean transmission with full fidelity.) However, quantum teleportation schemes utilize both resources to achieve what is impossible for either alone."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

No, it doesn't validate that at all as quantum entanglement isn't metaphysical to begin with and there's no such thing as "metaphysical travel of information" that you've demonstrated. However, since you'll predictably insist that it would (and you have no reservations about lying out of your ass), here, from the very link you should have been reading:

The outcome of Alice's measurement is random. Alice cannot decide which state to collapse the composite system into, and therefore cannot transmit information to Bob by acting on her system. Causality is thus preserved, in this particular scheme. For the general argument, see no-communication theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Let's follow that link shall we?

"
In quantum information theory, a no-communication theorem is a result which gives conditions under which instantaneous transfer of information between two observers is impossible. These results can be applied to understand the so-called paradoxes in quantum mechanics such as the EPR paradox or violations of local realism obtained in tests of Bell's theorem. In these experiments, the no-communication theorem shows that failure of local realism does not lead to what could be referred to as "spooky communication at a distance" (in analogy with Einstein's labeling of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance").
...
The no-communication theorem thus says shared entanglement alone can not be used to transmit any information. Compare this with the no teleportation theorem, which states a classical information channel can not transmit quantum information. (By transmit, we mean transmission with full fidelity.) However, quantum teleportation schemes utilize both resources to achieve what is impossible for either alone."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

So quantum entanglement is one giant paradox if no information can be transmitted from one particle to the other, yet information about the state of one particle is transferred to an entangled particle, which acts in accordance. Which is it? Is information about the state of entangled particles shared between the particles, or is no information about the state of entangled particles shared and thus entanglement theory is inherently false?

[Rust]

Perfect example as to why the question was should be for another thread, and I shouldn't have indulged you. I'm not your tutor. This isn't a thread to give you an education on Quantum Mechanics or science, and you don't deserve my help in any form. If you don't know about QM, which you clearly don't, then stop pretending you understand and go make a thread in the appropriate forum where you ask for help.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Perfect example as to why the question was should be for another thread, and I shouldn't have indulged you. I'm not your tutor. This isn't a thread to give you an education on Quantum Mechanics or science, and you don't deserve my help in any form. If you don't know about QM, which you clearly don't, then stop pretending you understand (like you were doing before), and go make a thread in the appropriate forum where you ask for help.

So now you're too high and mighty to share information that is applicable to this thread? Or are you too proud to admit that you do not know how the information between entangled particles is shared? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

So now you're too high and mighty to share information that is applicable to this thread? Or are you too proud to admit that you do not know how the information between entangled particles is shared? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Neither. I'm tired of your bullshit in this thread. I'd be happy to answer your question in the appropriate forum (i.e. not where you want to escape criticism or avoid the failure of your ridiculous superstitions), which goes to show how I'm not "too high and mighty" (though lets face it, you are in fact a moron), and I'm not avoiding answering your question.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Neither. I'm tired of your bullshit in this thread. I'd be happy to answer your question in the appropriate forum (i.e. not where you want to escape criticism or avoid the failure of your ridiculous superstitions), which goes to show how I'm not "too high and mighty" (though lets face it, you are in fact a moron), and I'm not avoiding answering your question.

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread...50#post3648650

[Rust]

Excellent, I'll answer that when I have time.

[Retard Synrdome]

Way to stay on topic you dumbasses.