China Communicates With Satalite In Earths Orbit Using Quantum Entanglement - Sensationalist Headlines

Yes, Soon we'll see satellite system of entangle satellite to talk to our space colonies and probes. Wishful thinking but assuming it works the way that i think it does maybe good for probes, real time communication and all that.

[QUOTE=nerdster409;52468932]Fuck quantum physics. Why couldn't it be simple Newtonian physics? FYI Quantum physics is why I stopped pursuing a physics degree.[/QUOTE] Soooo it got too confusing and difficult for you? Lmao

[QUOTE=Quark:;52476239]Soooo it got too confusing and difficult for you? Lmao[/QUOTE] Quantum physics is pretty confusing and difficult. Pretty sure everything is based on theories and very little is actually known for sure.

[QUOTE=joost1120;52476410]Quantum physics is pretty confusing and difficult.[/QUOTE] Yeah. [QUOTE=joost1120;52476410]Pretty sure everything is based on theories and very little is actually known for sure.[/QUOTE] No. Quantum mechanics (and even more so its big brother, quantum field theory) is one of the most successful and accurate theories in physics. So we know it for pretty damn sure.

Just to touch on a couple things with my acceptable understanding of quantum bullshit (this is the technical term). Observation does not necessarily even mean by an instrument. What we're really talking about is an interaction. As an analogy, imagine a racer running across the finish line, and breaking the tape. The tape has a measurable impact on the speed the runner finished the race because it provides some resistance. Similarly, anything that interacts with a quantum system has "observed" it, because information was exchanged. This is why using a measuring device collapses the state. The same could happen with the air in a room. Timof2009, you can hope all you like but it will never happen. You can't send information ftl via entanglement. As for joost saying we don't know much. Not true at all. We have been able to describe with great accuracy the fundamental nature of the universe for decades and decades now. Just because we have a few specific holes in our knowledge here and there doesn't mean we're actually inept. If we didn't understand these things well we wouldn't be able to find new particles with the LHC, create functional quantum computers, or do things like what this thread is about. As a side note I mentioned a couple weeks ago on FP that any mysticism, magic, the paranormal, or anthropomorphic self aware god ideas cannot exist because the universe is already understood by us in such a way that it makes those conclusions impossible. The fact that QFT is true and accurate precludes any ideas that do not fit within that framework, as well as proving we're likely quite close (relatively speaking, on the timeline of scientific discoveries) to a theory of everything. We really do know our shit quite well and just have [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics]a few important gaps[/url] to close. Note that many of these do not have to do with fundamental physics problems, but more general things such as the mechanisms behind supernovae.

I didn't mean that scientists have no idea what quantum physics actually is or anything like it, otherwise we wouldn't have this thread. I meant that there's different interpretations of how quantum physics work, and there's no clear "truth". Maybe my use of the word theory was bad.

ah right. yeah the emphases on the interpretations part, in which case yes we're still figuring that out. just wanted to make sure there's clarity there as we understand the mechanics extremely well, but some of the subtler implications of those mechanics are still up in the air.

[QUOTE=Quark:;52476239]Soooo it got too confusing and difficult for you? Lmao[/QUOTE] I'd absolutely love to see you attempt to do a college course in Quantum Mechanics. Doesn't matter how strenuous your revision scheduling is, it is [B]very fucking difficult[/B] even if you've got a strong background in mathematics and have a knack at understanding the high-level language used. It's difficulty is one of the primary reasons I failed my degree, and one of the reasons why I respect JonnyMo1, the other successful physicists on this board and my fellow undergrad physicists so much for actually being able to get to grips with it. [editline]17th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Timof2009;52469047]I am still hoping![/QUOTE] Appreciate the optimism, but seriously as joost1120 and myself have said in reply to the original post, that's not how entanglement works. 50 years down the line we may suddenly be elucidated with some way to do it, but everything we currently know points to the idea that it is not possible.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52468614]Like I said, I never claimed to understand it, just that many of the explanations people give as to why it's weird don't make any sense, even given the pretext that "quantum physics is weird". And the thing with the double-slit is, IIRC, once they tried to observe (measure) what was happening, the photons "behaved" differently, as though the means of measurement requiring some method of interacting with the photons in order to measure them changed their properties. (which again, no shit) But then, as I've said many times already, I'm not educated in this, so my confusion stems purely from ignorance regarding the matter. I'm not saying it's bull-honkey, I'm just saying that I personally don't get it according to the explanations given to me.[/QUOTE] if you're watching someone select food, and there's preference A and preference B, they can select the preference before they tell you what the preference is. when it comes to quantum physics, the preference isn't selected before you find out about it-- it is selected the instant you observe what the preference is.

[QUOTE=shotgun334;52483191]if you're watching someone select food, and there's preference A and preference B, they can select the preference before they tell you what the preference is. when it comes to quantum physics, the preference isn't selected before you find out about it-- it is selected the instant you observe what the preference is.[/QUOTE] Well see, it's this that I'm getting two very different sides of an argument about. From specialists. 1. The act of observing something, decides the outcome of an action. This gives power to the observer, and SUGGESTS (possibly) that the universe was neither in existence or not,or at the very least in different states, until something capable of observing it popped into existence. (This is an extreme example which doesn't take into account alot of things but the idea remains the same.) 2. The act of observing quantum particles disrupts quantum particles themselves and causes them to react differently in actually very normal ways, like a baseballer trying to find a ball flying past him by swinging a bat. However the 2nd one doesn't explain the slit experiment at all, but it's the most believable one, and actually the one that Neil Degrasse Tyson speaks about. The fact that particles react differently through the act of clean observation is just a ridiculous idea, I love it, but it can't be right. Observation means intent to witness.