There's a lot of pseudoscience involving faster-than-light, quantum entanglement, and black matter. The currently accepted views, i.e., not pseudoscience-fiction blabla, is that quantum entanglement can not send information faster than light, and faster than light particles don't exist, besides hypothetically.
In other words: Pics or it didn't happen.
Yeah. That's how I'd describe the guys at CERN - "psuedo-scientists."
+1 haha,
quantum entanglement is instantaneous
Yes, quantum entanglement is instantaneous, but what I said was that you can't send
information with it faster than light. Let me explain:
You have 2 entangled electrons. Entangled means that if one has spin up, then the other has spin down. Now, you send the electrons away from each other. Then, here on Earth you measure one of the electrons. It turns out to be spin up. Then you know the other one is spin down. The thing is, though, this doesn't send information. You can't force the measurement to come out spin up. If you could force it, then yes, you would send the info of "spin down" to the other electron on Mars. But because it's random, there is no way to send information with it.
atm humans are working on keeping those separated particles stable, that's all.
Yes, the entanglement is lost pretty soon at the moment, which means that if you measure spin up here on Earth, it's not guaranteed to be spin down on Mars anymore.
No "pseudoscience" involved like jwzguy said.
Entanglement is not pseudoscience, definitely not. It's proven and shown time and time again. What I meant was, people refer to entanglement to "justify" their pseudoscientific ideas about faster than light communication.
Ugh, that title ("Faster than light particles found, claim scientists"). It's so wrong :/ The scientists specifically said "We have
measured particles that
seem to go faster than light. We think we're making some error, but we've checked all that we could think of. Does the scientific community have any ideas we could check, or maybe repeat the experiment somewhere else to see if we get different results?"
Note that they do
not claim they found certain faster than light particles, only that it seems that way.
Also, this doesn't really have anything to do with entanglement.
And btw, Einstein
set us back a great deal with his "great" theory.
What?
What?You do realize that a large part of science up to now has been building on what Einstein did, right? GPS, for an obvious example, is involved heavily in relativity. The first GPS tests were kilometers off within a day, because the scientists back then didn't think relativity would really have that much of an influence.
Or are you just trying to troll here?
Can you please stop linking to newspapers, and start linking to scientific article sources at least (nature.com or something), or journals, even? Newspapers get the details wrong really often.
Please note that online documentation and the one that Labs have it's very extensive, so i'm only scraping the surface here.
I realize I may have been a bit unclear about what I meant. Let me restate it:
Quantum entanglement: Actual confirmed science. The "effect" is instantaneous. Does not allow information to be sent faster than light, however.
Faster than light neutrinos: Debated, as of yet unclear. People assume there is some error, but because they can't find it yet, the issue becomes more interesting because it may actually uncover new physics.
Faster than light communication: If the neutrinos turn out to be in error, then this is pseudo-science/science fiction.
Dark matter: Actual science. However, not much is know about it, so there are no "uses" for it yet, because it's not clear what "it" is.
A very good explanation of quantummechanics and related topics can be found here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/Usually explanations leave you with a "weirded-out" feeling, and tell you to "just accept that that's the way it is". This one actually gives you an intuitive understanding of how and why things work. It's a bit long because of that, because there's some base ground to cover.
