Quantum Entanglement - Einstein was right.

[computerhxr]

Everything is entangled. Prove me wrong.

 

[Black Rose]

Einstein believed particles at a distance could not interact with each other.

" Everything is entangled." does not mesh with what he believed.

Einstein believed Quantum Mechanics was hocus pocus.

 

[Black Rose]

" Everything is entangled."

Correct but not what Einstien believed.

 

[computerhxr]

Einstein believed particles at a distance could not interact with each other.

" Everything is entangled." does not mesh with what he believed.

Einstein believed Quantum Mechanics was hocus pocus.

Einstein believed in locality, causality, and quantities that could affect each other no faster than the speed of light. He thought it was incomplete and in fact, his theory of the Photoelectric Effect is a contribution to quantum physics.

Max Born proposed that mechanics were to be understood as a probability without any causal explanation. Einstein rejected this interpretation.

He recognizes the great value of the theory, but suggests that it "does not tell the whole story", and, while providing an appropriate description at a certain level, it gives no information on the more fundamental underlying level:

I have the greatest consideration for the goals which are pursued by the physicists of the latest generation which go under the name of quantum mechanics, and I believe that this theory represents a profound level of truth, but I also believe that the restriction to laws of a statistical nature will turn out to be transitory....Without doubt quantum mechanics has grasped an important fragment of the truth and will be a paragon for all future fundamental theories, for the fact that it must be deducible as a limiting case from such foundations, just as electrostatics is deducible from Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field or as thermodynamics is deducible from statistical mechanics.

" Everything is entangled."

Correct but not what Einstien believed.

In the sense of a unified field theory.

 

[sushi]

he was against quantum mechanics as far as my knowledge goes, at least skeptical and cynical towards it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Everything is entangled. Prove me wrong.

Are we talking physics here, because I would like to see the textbook you are quoting here.

 

[computerhxr]

Everything is entangled. Prove me wrong.

Are we talking physics here, because I would like to see the textbook you are quoting here.

If it is not in a textbook, then it is not physics? That is a great point.

 

[computerhxr]

he was against quantum mechanics as far as my knowledge goes, at least skeptical and cynical towards it.

He was working on a unified field theory but was unable to describe gravity. He wasn't opposed to Quantum Mechanics, and in fact, contributed to the field of Quantum Mechanics with the quantization of light as the photoelectric effect which required that light have a particle as well as a wave behavior.

Einstein was dismissive of Quantum Entanglement or "spooky actions at a distance" due to the violation of information transferred at speed greater than the speed of light.

Which I believe is true, and that information isn't being transferred at speeds greater than the speed of light. The experiments are fallacious in my opinion. I have yet to see one experiment that demonstrates the information transfer of Quantum Entanglement. In other words, you can not use Quantum Entanglement to transmit a message.

That doesn't mean that Quantum Entanglement is useless, as it can act as a key-pair to decrypt data. I am sure there are many other practical applications of Quantum Entanglement as well. But transferring information faster than the speed of light is a false interpretation of Quantum Entanglement.

However, the scientific consensus is that Quantum Entanglement proves that information is being transferred at speeds faster than the speed of light. This is not to be confused with the transmission of information at speeds faster than the speed of light, which is not the claim of Quantum Entanglement.

Watch from 11:45 to 14:05. At 13:22 "The collapse of the wave function is still statistical, and it cannot transmit a message."

Their reasoning seems to be, that we can't figure out how information can be stored therefore it must be that the particles are entangled and information is transferred instantaneously at any distance.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If it is not in a textbook, then it is not physics? That is a great point.

yes

 

[computerhxr]

If it is not in a textbook, then it is not physics? That is a great point.

yes

Okay, I am talking about reality then, not physics. When I say that everything is entangled, I mean that it is all bound to a universal field.

 

[Daddy]

Everything is entangled. Prove me wrong.

You could make that argument.

Technically, that's what String Theory posits. According to that theory the world exists as a giant hologram where entangled particles exist in opposing states/realities. And when you collapse the wave function (by untangling particles), you actually collapse your parallel reality to one of a number of particle states. But the other states are thought to exist independently of you in a parallel world kind of way.

I'm personally not a fan of that theory, since it seems much more likely that entangled particles are just closely bound by some kind of electromagnetic spin that requires them to interact a certain way; and that when you pull entangled particles apart very large distances, it is likely we are just seeing the kinetic energy of their initial entanglement, which happens to reflect their initial entangled state. Because for one, once you disturb one particle (in order to measure it), you lose all information (even if just statistical information) about its previously entangled pair and so, you can't transmit information from one to the other like a wormhole to break the speed of light. You'd have to entangle them first and then pull them apart at the maximum speed of light to keep their entangled information over a large distance, defeating the point of faster than light travel.

It's also likely that the quantum vacuum is made up of some kind of orientation and/or spin (if that's the same thing), similar to a electromagnetic field because light, which is an alternating magnetic and electric field, travels through it at the localized maximum speed limit of c. If I had to bet on it, I'd say in order to travel faster than the maximum speed of light, you'd have to exist without any kind of inherent electromagnetic push/pull/spin, which seems to make up all kinds of matter, including the quarks in supposedly electromagnetically neutral neutrons (which can be effected by very large frequency electromagnetic photons, known as cosmic Gamma rays), and gravity which is probably just a more complicated interaction of the spin of the quantum vacuum versus the spin of matter. But in theory, if you could do that, you'd probably exist in another dimension anyway.

Anyway, what was the question/problem?

edit: fixed typo

 

[computerhxr]

Technically, that's what String Theory posits. According to that theory the world exists as a giant hologram where entangled particles exist in opposing states/realities. And when you collapse the wave function (by untangling particles), you actually collapse your parallel reality to one of a number of particle states. But the other states are thought to exist independently of you in a parallel world kind of way.

I'm personally not a fan of that theory, since it seems much more likely that entangled particles are just closely bound by some kind of electromagnetic spin that requires them to interact a certain way; and that when you pull entangled particles apart very large distances, it is likely we are just seeing the kinetic energy of their initial entanglement, which happens to reflect their initial entangled state. Because for one, once you disturb one particle (in order to measure it), you lose all information (even if just statistical information) about its previously entangled pair and so, you can't transmit information from one to the other like a wormhole to break the speed of light. You'd have to entangle them first and then pull them apart at the maximum speed of light to keep their entangled information over a large distance, defeating the point of faster than light travel.

Yes, that is exactly why quantum entanglement is flawed. What you are describing is more like that of Einstein's hidden variables. The problem with quantum entanglement is that their claim is that the measurement of one entangled particle has a faster than lightspeed affect on the other entangled particle. It is not true, it just appears that way.

It's also likely that the quantum vacuum is made up of some kind of orientation and/or spin (if that's the same thing), similar to a electromagnetic field because light, which is an alternating magnetic and electric field, travels through it at the localized maximum speed limit of c. If I had to bet on it, I'd say in order to travel faster than the maximum speed of light, you'd have to exist without any kind of inherent electromagnetic push/pull/spin, which seems to make up all kinds of matter, including the quarks in supposedly electromagnetically neutral neutrons (which can be effected by very large frequency electromagnetic photons, known as cosmic rays), and gravity which is probably just a more complicated interaction of the spin of the quantum vacuum versus the spin of matter. But in theory, if you could do that, you'd probably exist in another dimension anyway.

Anyway, what was the question/problem?

I guess it depends on how you view different dimensions. I see them as overlapping by degree. So if someone is in another dimension, they don't exist outside of this universe, but they exist in it. However, a dimension that has close to zero measurable impact on what we can observe does have the capacity to build up enough energy to cross a threshold. So even if we exist in a multiverse, technically it is still a singular universe.

An easy way to think about it would be by a vibrating string. Let's say that you cut in down its center, and separated the two strings (in a vacuum). They would both vibrate at the same frequency and amplitude no matter how far apart they are. If you measure one, does it affect the other? Let's say 100 feet apart you measure and it's vibrating at 110 Hz, then go and measure the other one, would you be surprised if it was also 110 Hz?

 

[Daddy]

I guess it depends on how you view different dimensions. I see them as overlapping by degree. So if someone is in another dimension, they don't exist outside of this universe, but they exist in it. However, a dimension that has close to zero measurable impact on what we can observe does have the capacity to build up enough energy to cross a threshold. So even if we exist in a multiverse, technically it is still a singular universe.

I guess that's the thing though. It "appears" that electromagnetic charge seems inherent to everything, so we are always bounded by the locality of the speed of c. And so by another dimension, I kind of mean not existing in the system any more. Like being outside the simulation. However, maybe you are right and we could just lower it enough to where it doesn't effect things the same way and we could maybe travel faster than light that way. But even something like a neutron still has charge at a certain micro-level and it is bound by c anyway because it has mass. And according to relativity, mass is also relative and goes up as you move faster, which can include rotating bodies (and resulting increases in gravity). So it almost seems you have to somehow become massless, but since the massless photons are still limited by c, it seems untenable that we could ever theoretically go faster than light.

But then again, in a way it doesn't matter. Theoretically, if we could travel close to the speed of light, our time relative to everything else slows down considerably to where you could travel great distances in very small amounts of time, even seconds depending on how fast you are going. But the universe would undergo rapid changes in the process. And if you could move at the speed of light, your time would stop and the universe would go through infinite time, so this is not ideal.

There's also theoretical space shifting warp drive machines I've by been reading about that use anti-matter to warp space (and ignoring that those theories admit they don't understand what anti-matter really is and make assumptions about it). But even those machines are likely still limited by c because the propagation of warped space due to gravitational changes has been measured to move at the speed of c. https://www.sciencealert.com/speed-of-gravitational-waves-and-light-same (which is another reason why the electromagnetism of light is probably related to gravity). But it could be possible to construct "warp gates" this way. However we'd also be permanently changing the fabric of space in the process, which might be a complicated, chaotic, and messy thing to do. Last thing we want to do is send our Earth away from or into the sun.

An easy way to think about it would be by a vibrating string. Let's say that you cut in down its center, and separated the two strings (in a vacuum). They would both vibrate at the same frequency and amplitude no matter how far apart they are. If you measure one, does it affect the other? Let's say 100 feet apart you measure and it's vibrating at 110 Hz, then go and measure the other one, would you be surprised if it was also 110 Hz?

Because it is oscillating, we are continually changing the quantum alignment of that vacuum and would be presumably limited by the local speed limit of c in feeling those changes around the strings.

So if the other string measures 110Hz after the first string was measured at 110Hz, I'd say either the measurement didn't effect the frequency of the vibration or we have a non-local transmission of information between two different things in space.

However, in theory, since the oscillations of the strings could be thought of as a continually changing space, if we interact with a string, we'd theoretically alter how that space is changing, resulting in a different resulting frequency...because to measure something, we must interact with it, leading to an uncertainty principle whereby the more accurate our measurement, the more our energy gets transferred and the more changes we then also inadvertently make.

But let's say this doesn't happen anyway and it is still local. Then perhaps each string has compressed the space greatly between them so that it appears to us they are far apart when in reality they've created a compressed channel of space where they sit next to each other. I guess this could be thought of as another dimension and I could accept that. But I also don't know how that would work either. I've heard people speculate maybe it is like two black holes are linked together, but then all the space around the strings would be compressed as well. And we'd have to accept the fact that we can't measure it, despite that. So I don't know. I guess it's "possible", but ???. Does String Theory explain this theoretical mechanism? I'm going to be honest, I've never looked too much into String Theory; it seems too fanciful with stuff we don't know much about to begin with.

 

[computerhxr]

I guess it depends on how you view different dimensions. I see them as overlapping by degree. So if someone is in another dimension, they don't exist outside of this universe, but they exist in it. However, a dimension that has close to zero measurable impact on what we can observe does have the capacity to build up enough energy to cross a threshold. So even if we exist in a multiverse, technically it is still a singular universe.

I guess that's the thing though. It "appears" that electromagnetic charge seems inherent to everything, so we are always bounded by the locality of the speed of c. And so by another dimension, I kind of mean not existing in the system any more. Like being outside the simulation. However, maybe you are right and we could just lower it enough to where it doesn't effect things the same way and we could maybe travel faster than light that way. But even something like a neutron still has charge at a certain micro-level and it is bound by c anyway because it has mass. And according to relativity, mass is also relative and goes up as you move faster, which can include rotating bodies (and resulting increases in gravity). So it almost seems you have to somehow become massless, but since the massless photons are still limited by c, it seems untenable that we could ever theoretically go faster than light.

But then again, in a way it doesn't matter. Theoretically, if we could travel close to the speed of light, our time relative to everything else slows down considerably to where you could travel great distances in very small amounts of time, even seconds depending on how fast you are going. But the universe would undergo rapid changes in the process. And if you could move at the speed of light, your time would stop and the universe would go through infinite time, so this is not ideal.

There's also theoretical space shifting warp drive machines I've by been reading about that use anti-matter to warp space (and ignoring that those theories admit they don't understand what anti-matter really is and make assumptions about it). But even those machines are likely still limited by c because the propagation of warped space due to gravitational changes has been measured to move at the speed of c. https://www.sciencealert.com/speed-of-gravitational-waves-and-light-same (which is another reason why the electromagnetism of light is probably related to gravity). But it could be possible to construct "warp gates" this way. However we'd also be permanently changing the fabric of space in the process, which might be a complicated, chaotic, and messy thing to do. Last thing we want to do is send our Earth away from or into the sun.

An easy way to think about it would be by a vibrating string. Let's say that you cut in down its center, and separated the two strings (in a vacuum). They would both vibrate at the same frequency and amplitude no matter how far apart they are. If you measure one, does it affect the other? Let's say 100 feet apart you measure and it's vibrating at 110 Hz, then go and measure the other one, would you be surprised if it was also 110 Hz?

Because it is oscillating, we are continually changing the quantum alignment of that vacuum and would be presumably limited by the local speed limit of c in feeling those changes around the strings.

So if the other string measures 110Hz after the first string was measured at 110Hz, I'd say either the measurement didn't effect the frequency of the vibration or we have a non-local transmission of information between two different things in space.

However, in theory, since the oscillations of the strings could be thought of as a continually changing space, if we interact with a string, we'd theoretically alter how that space is changing, resulting in a different resulting frequency...because to measure something, we must interact with it, leading to an uncertainty principle whereby the more accurate our measurement, the more our energy gets transferred and the more changes we then also inadvertently make.

But let's say this doesn't happen anyway and it is still local. Then perhaps each string has compressed the space greatly between them so that it appears to us they are far apart when in reality they've created a compressed channel of space where they sit next to each other. I guess this could be thought of as another dimension and I could accept that. But I also don't know how that would work either. I've heard people speculate maybe it is like two black holes are linked together, but then all the space around the strings would be compressed as well. And we'd have to accept the fact that we can't measure it, despite that. So I don't know. I guess it's "possible", but ???. Does String Theory explain this theoretical mechanism? I'm going to be honest, I've never looked too much into String Theory; it seems too fanciful with stuff we don't know much about to begin with.

I have been studying more about quantum physics and it turns out that I discovered something independently, before acquiring the knowledge through research. I just predicted it based on my hypothesis. I also predicted another phenomenon in quantum physics. Still, I am a visual thinker and there's a large body of knowledge that I am trying to understand piece-by-piece.

The reason that I bring that up, was because it came after I was discussing the threshold. I found out that quantum physics operates in steps, which is why quantization of wave function is possible. To me, these represent thresholds that operate more like a switch than a transition. So the energy would need to build up in what you would consider another dimension before it would reach a critical mass and permeate into our measurable dimension. It was really exciting to discover this when with my limited knowledge on the topic it was what I hypothesized. However, that is my interpretation of quantization but it does seem to support my prediction.

The other prediction was with polarized lenses. Two 90 degree polarized lenses filter out 100% of light, and a 3rd at 45 degrees allows light to pass through. That made sense due to what I called displacement. I illustrated what it would look like and later made the discovery from my research that it actually does shift the energy somehow.

So my hypothesis is that quantum entanglement is actually just a displacement of energy that when measured would produce the same results as we know from experiments. Einstein thought that there were hidden variables, which they explain in the YouTube video was impossible and that faster than light transfer of information was the winning explanation. However, I believe that there is an underlying explanation that I seen in my mind but have no way of describing any other way than visually with diagrams. It is really encouraging for two of my predictions to line up with the existing body of knowledge, but also it may lead me to the same conclusion.

Going back to what you were saying about opening warp gates... That wouldn't be possible because we already exist in all of these dimensions. Our instruments and senses are only capable of picking up a specific range of dimensions that run through every fiber of everything in existence. The combination of these dimensions we perceive as reality, which is why the concept of dimensions is confusing. It is like layers of a quilt, just because you can only experience the surface pattern doesn't mean that the other layers are not part of the overall fabric that makes up the quilt. So if you move to the cotton layer in between the covering materials, you still exist within the same quilt, however out perception is dominated by the surface layer.

My hypothesis also includes everything from the beginning to the edge of space and time. It would be possible to have information appear to transfer faster than the speed of light, but in my mind, this is just a product of ripples merging into a larger spire. Like, if you have ever seen where they put a bouncy ball in the center of a parachute and everyone at the edges move it up and down, creating a wave. All of this energy ripples down to the center and launches the ball into the air. So in a sense, you can say that the people at the edges all transferred the energy to the center the instant you received the collection of force because you are receiving information from two ends of the material at the same time, so from the perspective of the ball, they would have both appeared to occur in the same instant. We know this isn't true because we can see it from a different perspective, but imagine if all of that was happening across a threshold that was beyond your senses. All you would measure is the product of all the forces and if you broke them down it would appear to have wave and particle properties of more than just the single force, but a collection of forces.

 

[sushi]

If it is not in a textbook, then it is not physics? That is a great point.

yes

Okay, I am talking about reality then, not physics. When I say that everything is entangled, I mean that it is all bound to a universal field.

so unified field theory is quantum entanglement?

 

[computerhxr]

If it is not in a textbook, then it is not physics? That is a great point.

yes

Okay, I am talking about reality then, not physics. When I say that everything is entangled, I mean that it is all bound to a universal field.

so unified field theory is quantum entanglement?

A unified field theory would be the complete entanglement of everything. The Sun for example is entangled with Earth. Literally everything in existence is bound together. What happens on Earth's Sun affects Earth, but the propagation is still limited to the speed of light. So in the sense of quantum entanglement, it would not propagate faster, rather through a medium that is beyond what we are capable of measuring with the instruments we have available. So it would explain quantum entanglement as a sort of hidden variable across a threshold that we currently are unaware of how it works exactly, so we have "spooky action at a distance" rather than an accurate theory. Just like general relativity works really well, but is incomplete, so we have special relativity. There is a more complete theory that describes the phenomenon without faster than light transfer of information like we how we currently interpret quantum entanglement.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Aha of course should have know better. What was I thinking.
We are talking about hypothetical make believe stuff. Sure then whatever you say.

 

[computerhxr]

Aha of course should have know better. What was I thinking.
We are talking about hypothetical make believe stuff. Sure then whatever you say.

Yeah, that is how science works. You have to imagine things and test your hypothesis using experiments that again, you have to imagine first.

And, my make-believe resulted in two accurate discoveries, that probably are in textbooks somewhere. It is described by physicists and mathematicians on YouTube videos which give a visual representation of the math.

You know the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum entanglement is make-believe stuff too, right? It's just the most widely accepted interpretation of the observed phenomenon.

 

[computerhxr]

Part of me thinks that they must have figured it out back in Einstein's time. They settled on creating a mystery to drive scientists to continue the search because that is where progress is made. Quantum entanglement is like a magic trick. The magician pulls a white rabbit from an empty hat in a dazzling display of pure magic that defies our sense of reason. Curiosity drives our imagination and expands our minds.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You know the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum entanglement is make-believe stuff too, right? It's just the most widely accepted interpretation of the observed phenomenon.

It is called interpretation for a reason I guess.

 

[computerhxr]

Someone brought up the quantum eraser experiment and explained how it goes back in time to affect the past. That is more hogwash in my opinion. If anything, this experiment should prove that particles are not entangled and that there is information hidden across a threshold that we are unable to measure.

 

[scorpiomover]

Everything is entangled. Prove me wrong.

Is everything quantum entangled?

In a nutshell, no.

1) Particles can be entangled, as long as they remain in superposition and retain the information of their connectedness in the interference patterns they generate. Once they decohere, they lose their connected information, and the entanglement is gone.

2) Even when 2 particles are entangled, they are only entangled based on the possible results of one quantum interaction. The 2 particles then go off and have another interaction with 2 more particles, which generates more entanglement with all 4 particles. The 4 particles then go off and have another interaction with 4 more particles, which generates more entanglement with all 8 particles. As quantum interactions happen extremely quickly, you can have millions of interactions in a second. Consequently, by the time that one second has passed, the particles are now entangled with at least 2^1,000,000 particles, which is far more than the 10^97 elementary particles in the universe, which in turn means that each particle is directly & indirectly entangled with any one other particle 2(1,000,000-97) times.

So as long as entanglement exists, any 2 particles are so incredibly entangled with so many, that trying to identify the effects of one entanglement of 2 particles would be subsumed in all the other effects of all the other entanglements. So you'd just get a random pattern as if there was no entanglement.

3) Empirically, the universe would look very different to today, if everything was entangled.

Imagine if you switched on a light, and half the devices in your home also came on, because they were all entangled.

 

[sushi]

I dont get it, so if i fall for some stranger i like on facebook or irl, am i entangled with her?

 

[scorpiomover]

I dont get it, so if i fall for some stranger i like on facebook or irl, am i entangled with her?

If you hair and her hair get tangled up together, then yes you are.

 

[sushi]

it probably is and we need more information.

do you have any citations and articles.

 

[Grayman]

Everything is entangled. Prove me wrong.

Your brain is entangled with an alien quantum computer. Consequently your thoughts are a mirror reflection of the computers. Prove me wrong.

 

[Grayman]

If it is not in a textbook, then it is not physics? That is a great point.

yes

Okay, I am talking about reality then, not physics. When I say that everything is entangled, I mean that it is all bound to a universal field.

Wut? You mean an Aether Theory?

 

[Grayman]

I dont get it, so if i fall for some stranger i like on facebook or irl, am i entangled with her?

I'm sure you imagine it sometimes.

 

[Grayman]

Everything is entangled. Prove me wrong.

Is everything quantum entangled?

In a nutshell, no.

1) Particles can be entangled, as long as they remain in superposition and retain the information of their connectedness in the interference patterns they generate. Once they decohere, they lose their connected information, and the entanglement is gone.

2) Even when 2 particles are entangled, they are only entangled based on the possible results of one quantum interaction. The 2 particles then go off and have another interaction with 2 more particles, which generates more entanglement with all 4 particles. The 4 particles then go off and have another interaction with 4 more particles, which generates more entanglement with all 8 particles. As quantum interactions happen extremely quickly, you can have millions of interactions in a second. Consequently, by the time that one second has passed, the particles are now entangled with at least 2^1,000,000 particles, which is far more than the 10^97 elementary particles in the universe, which in turn means that each particle is directly & indirectly entangled with any one other particle 2(1,000,000-97) times.

So as long as entanglement exists, any 2 particles are so incredibly entangled with so many, that trying to identify the effects of one entanglement of 2 particles would be subsumed in all the other effects of all the other entanglements. So you'd just get a random pattern as if there was no entanglement.

3) Empirically, the universe would look very different to today, if everything was entangled.

Imagine if you switched on a light, and half the devices in your home also came on, because they were all entangled.

It's called a Smartbulb.

 

[sushi]

I dont get it, so if i fall for some stranger i like on facebook or irl, am i entangled with her?

I'm sure you imagine it sometimes.

no everything you encounter in space time moment has a reason, hence entanglement.
for example two cars driven by two unrelated people met on road crossing , causing an event to happen.

things very far away or unrelated to each other seem to share some connection or field.

we must understand the conditions and cause of entanglement in order to prove it true.

 

[Grayman]

I dont get it, so if i fall for some stranger i like on facebook or irl, am i entangled with her?

I'm sure you imagine it sometimes.

no everything you encounter in space time moment has a reason, hence entanglement.
for example two cars driven by two unrelated people met on road crossing , causing an event to happen.

things very far away or unrelated to each other seem to share some connection or field.

we must understand the conditions and cause of entanglement in order to prove it true.

All it probably is, is two particles interacting through a wormhole or vacuum in the Aether. The Aether, a soup of quantum strings and bosons, slows or intercepts the energy transfer between the Particles. Without Aether, in this vaccum, the particles can directly transfer energy back and forth like a pendulum. The pendulum analogy is probably not the most accurate. It would probably be more accurate to say that they become one particle that is stretched like a hourglass. Like taking two wads of gum and them stretching them apart there exists a thin line that connects them. This is the vacuum or wormhole were the particles are able to interact with each other outside of, more accurately in between, the quantum soup that regulates space and time.

 

[sushi]

if you try to organize and direct a movie or play set, you need many poeple cordinating and working together at once to make the sequence of events real and then film it.

that is what space time is like, some sort of spontaneous organization to create some event or story to happen. anyway, not sure how this is related to entanglement.

to address the problem of entanglement, it must be consistent with the observer and cause to be proven. can entanglement be observed and tested, and what is the cause and source.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's called a Smartbulb.

What's a smartbulb?

 

[computerhxr]

Everything is entangled. Prove me wrong.

Your brain is entangled with an alien quantum computer. Consequently your thoughts are a mirror reflection of the computers. Prove me wrong.

That pretty much sums up what I was saying.

 

[sushi]

do you have any sources to cite, computerhxr