Vort

Oops. I wrote my followup prompt for ChatGPT here. *blush*

ChapGPT comfortably agrees with me. Not that ChatGPT is the final word, but it does seem to back up my own understanding. If you can get through the particle physics goop, the following conversation is enlightening. At least, it was to me. **************************** Vort said: Many say that entangled waveforms can be made to collapse into identical states at the same moment, regardless of the distance between them. But this cannot be correct. As per Einstein, you cannot even define simultaneity outside of a specified inertial reference frame. So how can you have this "infinitely fast" or "faster-than-light-speed" communication between the entangled waveforms? ChatGPT said: You are absolutely correct that the idea of simultaneity being frame-dependent, as laid out in Einstein's theory of relativity, poses a challenge to any interpretation of entanglement as involving "instantaneous" or "faster-than-light" communication. Let’s break this down: Entanglement and Nonlocality When two particles are entangled, their quantum states are correlated in such a way that measuring one particle determines the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them. However, this does not imply any actual communication or transfer of information faster than light. Here’s why: Quantum Mechanics is Nonlocal, But Not Causal: The correlations between entangled particles appear "instantaneous" because the outcomes of measurements are connected by the shared quantum state. However, these correlations do not allow for faster-than-light communication because: The result of a measurement on one particle is random. Observers cannot control the outcome of their measurements to transmit information. Without a way to control these outcomes, no meaningful signal can be sent. Relativity and the Absence of Simultaneity: As you noted, simultaneity is relative and depends on the observer's frame of reference. When one particle is measured, the other "seems" to collapse into the correlated state in the observer’s frame. But in another frame of reference, the sequence of measurements could appear reversed. Quantum mechanics doesn't specify a preferred reference frame or an absolute notion of simultaneity, which is consistent with relativity. Bell's Theorem and Local Realism: Bell's theorem and the experiments confirming violations of Bell inequalities show that quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables. This demonstrates nonlocality but doesn't imply faster-than-light communication, as the nonlocal correlations respect relativistic causality. Quantum Field Theory: In quantum field theory, interactions and information transfer are constrained by the light cone. The apparent "instantaneous" correlations in entanglement are consistent with this, as they don’t involve physical signals exceeding the speed of light. Resolving the Paradox The key lies in understanding that the "collapse" of the wavefunction is not a physical process that propagates through space. Instead, it reflects a change in our knowledge about the system. When one measurement is made, the state of the system is updated globally in the mathematical formalism, but this doesn’t imply a physical signal traveling between the particles. Conclusion While entanglement correlations are remarkable and defy classical intuition, they do not violate relativity. The lack of absolute simultaneity does not pose a problem because quantum mechanics sidesteps the need for a causal mechanism linking the measurements. Instead, it emphasizes the probabilistic and holistic nature of quantum systems, without enabling faster-than-light communication. Vort said: So are you saying that it is impossible to have entangled waveforms/particles that can be forced to collapse into either of two possible states? ChatGPT said: Yes, it is impossible to force entangled particles to collapse into one of two possible states in a way that allows for control or communication between them. Here's why: 1. Measurement Outcomes are Random When you measure one particle in an entangled pair, the outcome is random, though correlated with the measurement on the other particle. For example: If you measure one particle and find it in state ∣0〉, the other particle will instantaneously collapse into the corresponding state ∣1〉 (or the same state, depending on the entangled relationship). However, you cannot control whether the outcome is ∣0〉 or ∣1〉. The result is governed by the quantum wavefunction's probabilistic nature. 2. No Hidden Signals Even though the measurement outcomes are correlated, this does not involve any physical signal or mechanism that travels between the particles faster than light. The collapse is a nonlocal feature of the quantum state, but it does not constitute a "communication channel." 3. Forcing Collapse Cannot Be Controlled The act of measuring one particle doesn’t "force" the other to collapse into a specific predetermined state in any controllable way: The collapse happens as a consequence of the entangled quantum state. You can't choose the outcome for the first particle to "force" a corresponding outcome for the second. 4. Quantum Mechanics and No-Communication Theorem The no-communication theorem explicitly states that entanglement cannot be used to transmit information. The theorem relies on the fact that: The reduced state of either particle (i.e., its observable state when ignoring the other particle) is completely random. Any manipulation of one particle cannot be discerned by observing the other alone. 5. Entanglement and Bell's Theorem Bell's theorem demonstrates that quantum correlations are stronger than any local hidden variable theory could explain. However, these correlations are "passive" in the sense that they reflect statistical properties of measurements across many trials. They cannot be harnessed to actively control or send messages. What You Can Do You can measure one particle and infer information about the state of the other, but only after comparing measurement results via classical communication (which is limited by the speed of light). Entanglement experiments confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics but never allow for faster-than-light signaling. Conclusion Entangled particles cannot be forced to collapse into a particular state that you choose, nor can this process be used for communication or influence at a distance. Entanglement is a deeply fascinating phenomenon, but it operates within the limits of quantum mechanics and relativity, preserving causality and prohibiting faster-than-light control. Vort said: What you say makes sense, and it reflects my understanding. But in popular discourse, there seems to be the notion that we can create an entangled waveform capable of collapsing either into |0> or into |1>, and that we can choose into which of these two states we can collapse the waveform. That last part must necessarily be false, though. Correct? ChatGPT said: Yes, that last part—the notion that we can choose which state the entangled waveform collapses into—is necessarily false. This idea is a common misunderstanding or oversimplification in popular discussions about quantum mechanics. Here’s why this claim is incorrect: 1. Collapse is Intrinsically Random In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (e.g., the Copenhagen interpretation), the outcome of measuring an entangled particle is fundamentally probabilistic: If the entangled system is in a state like , measuring particle A has a 50% chance of collapsing into ∣0〉 and 50% into ∣1〉. The corresponding particle B collapses into the complementary state (∣1〉 if A collapses into ∣0〉, and vice versa). Crucially, you have no control over whether A collapses into ∣0〉 or ∣1〉. 2. Measurement Does Not Allow "Steering" Although entanglement creates correlations between the particles, the observer cannot "steer" the state into a particular outcome. The measured results are consistent with the probabilities dictated by the quantum state but are not influenced by the observer's will or actions. 3. Misinterpretations of "Collapsing the Waveform" In popular discourse, phrases like "choosing the state of the waveform" often misrepresent the subtle and counterintuitive nature of quantum measurements: The choice of measurement basis (e.g., whether you measure spin along the zzz-axis or xxx-axis) can affect what kind of result you see, but this doesn’t equate to choosing the outcome. Once the measurement is made, the result is determined probabilistically, and the other entangled particle's state is correlated accordingly—but again, no freedom exists to choose the specific result. 4. No Faster-Than-Light Signaling This misunderstanding often leads to the erroneous belief that you can use entangled particles for faster-than-light communication. If you could choose how the wavefunction collapses, you could theoretically send information instantaneously. Since this doesn’t happen: Entangled systems cannot be used for communication. The process respects the no-communication theorem and causality in relativity. Why the Misconception Persists Simplified Explanations: Pop-science articles and media often describe entanglement in ways that emphasize its "spooky" nature but gloss over the limitations of what entanglement actually allows. Quantum Jargon: Terms like "collapse" and "wavefunction" can sound deterministic, leading people to assume there is control over outcomes when there isn’t. Appeal of Science Fiction: The idea of controlling entanglement to send messages or make "instant decisions" aligns with exciting science fiction narratives, but it’s not physically possible. Conclusion While entanglement is a remarkable phenomenon that defies classical intuition, you cannot choose how an entangled waveform collapses. The collapse is governed by the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics, ensuring that the process adheres to causality and prohibits faster-than-light communication or control.

I don't know what to make of "quantum entanglement", which is another way of saying I don't deeply understand well what it's supposed to mean. The wormhole idea seems reasonable, though I (and many actual physicists) don't believe that wormholes are anything other than science fiction. So I am left not knowing what to make of the idea. What does it mean for two separated events to happen "simultaneously"? I mean, by definition of the word, that seems clear enough. But Einstein showed that any two events that are "simultaneous" in a given intertial (non-accelerating) reference frame are non-simultaneous in most other inertial reference frames. So what does that mean in "quantum entanglement" terms? If I force an entangled waveform to collapse to a certain state, then its entangled partner some distance away (perhaps light-seconds away, or even light-years away) must also collapse into that state. But then I can find an inertial reference frame where the entangled partner waveform collapsed before I forced my entangled waveform to collapse. Does that mean the entangled particle actually forced me to collapse it in that way? Becaues that's sure what it looks like. Unless you decide you don't believe in causality (cause and effect; A happened which led to B, therefore A caused B), there is no way that I see that the idea of FTL communications can be accepted. Can a son be born before his father? If so, then FTL communication makes sense. If not—and I say not—then it can't be possible.

You may not realize that any system (including so-called philotes) that allows for faster-than-light "instantaneous" communications between separate points in the universe violates Einsteinian physics. Specifically, FTL communications, instantaneous or otherwise, violates the existence of time dilation, a principle that is firmly established. Violating this principle necessarily introduces the "Grandfather paradox".

I'm well-read and, well, red.

Agreed. Plus the fact that, even with ear protection, the .44 was just LOUD. I can't imagine how loud it must be without ear protection. People who practiced with large-caliber handguns back in the day, when ear protection was unheard of (see what I did there?), couldn't have made out well.

I do not own a handgun, and I'm not planning on getting one any time soon. But if I got one, it would be a 9mm. I want to train with any firearm I own or may carry, and a hand cannon like a .44 or .45 is just too much gun for me. Plus I don't like the idea of spending a mortgage payment every month for ammo.

Please keep in mind that there will no longer be any free elections in the US. Never again. Free elections are a thing of the past. This we know absolutely to be true, because every prominent Democrat clearly said so in the weeks and months leading up to the election.

Such a stunt draws attention to the event (movie, in this case). The few reviews I have read on this movie have been somewhat negative, and the movie itself is not likely to be highly popular. Fewer eyes = fewer being misled by this sophomoric representation of the Church and its missionaries. With "The Book of Mormon" musical, it had already become a notable event with many positive, even rave, reviews, before the Church chose to distribute copies of the actual Book of Mormon at its show locations. That was simply making the best of a bad situation. I would prefer not to give this ridiculous horror flick that kind of publicity.

I sincerely hope not.

Two more days...

I'm not sure about when that rule was implemented. I'm thinking it was sometime before the rule about getting brachial IUD implants.

This is the heartbreak. Either we bribe people to have children and remove many of the responsibilities (and joys) of parenthood, or else people will just kill their children to avoid having to get up at night, miss out on clubbing, and not be able to afford that boat.

We only used the plinking range, so handguns and a .22 rifle were all we shot.

Raw bovine milk is a sort of nectar. I used to believe that pasteurization was all that and a bag of M&Ms. I'm starting to disbelieve that, for several reasons.

Note to self: 16 rounds from a .44 revolver makes your wrists and shoulders hurt. Plus the heavier gun is hard to aim accurately past about 30 feet if unsupported.

The idea of bribing people into having children is so repulsive that I'm not sure what to think of it. Except that it's repulsive.

I remember BYU getting an invitation to an international symposium or discussion on the family, based primarily on the name of the "Kennedy Center". As I recall, BYU presented an outline of family that went very much against the grain of what the symposium organizers wanted, but very much supported by the representatives of many countries, especially African and other poorer (and we may presume humbler) countries.

That actually makes sense, and partially explains why Roald Dahl was so weird.

At first, this seemed a non sequitur. But I think it is not. Heaven help the country and the culture where "thrashing [people] with sticks until they ble[e]d" qualifies as sexual abuse.

Any forum where politicians are able (or more likely expected, or required) to explain their position on issues and defend those explanations from reasonable, well-thought-out criticisms would be greatly welcomed. One-on-one so-called debates, in-depth interviews, whatever. I care less about the format than about hearing something more substantial than slogans or empty platitudes. Both political sides engage in such chicanery, but the Democrats seem to rely on it almost exclusively. At least Trump squeezed some actual policy ideas in between his quips and insults. I don't remember Harris offering any solid policy points on anything at all. Mainly she just exulted in how she wasn't Donald Trump, and apparently expected to coast to victory based on that fact. I'm so, so glad that such a soulless, cynical, vacuous strategy did not work. (This time, at least; I rather suspect that it was the winning factor in Biden's candidacy. Because let's be honest, what else did Biden offer? At his best, he was never particularly intelligent, and his "policies" were Democrat talking points. His presidency really exposed his apparent utter lack of any leadership skills or any real policy ideas beyond what his advisors and echo chamber offered.)

I've heard this quite a bit, but I don't buy it. This is the kind of thing eagerly lapped up by those predisposed to hate Trump. Here's something relevant I stumbled across, something that won't convince the haters (it wouldn't convince me if I were a hater), but certainly speaks in Trump's favor.

In a more ideal world, Ramaswamy, not Trump, would have been the Republican nominee. How fun that would have been, watching the Democrats and their lapdog media trying, and failing, to eviscerate Ramaswamy without appearing to be the unmitigated racists they really are.

Full disclosure: I say /ˈmaʊn.ʔn/, where the ʔ represents a glottal stop. So essentially "moun'n", almost like in Utah.

How much time have you spent in the moun'uns?