Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way people get around the idea that entanglement implies instantaneous communication is that no actual information is passed when the entangled particles affect each other. The arguement is as follows (using a non-QM example):
Say you agree to send out two beams of light to your two friends who live on opposite sides of the galaxy (you live in the middle). Ahead of time you tell them that if one of the beams of light is red the other will be blue. So you send the blue beam to your friend on one side and immediately she knows that your other friend is recieving a red beam at the same time. Aha! You say, my friends have now communicated at a speed faster than the speed of light and violated relativity, but no real information has been passed between them. You have told both of them at a normal sub-luminal speed about what you just did and that's all. (A way of proving there's no faster than light communication is that you could lie and send them both the same coloured beam of light and they would never know!).
With QM is gets a bit more complicated because theoretically no-one knows the state of the particle until it has been observed, but you still cannot affect the state of the particle so the arguement is the same.
There is a nice article about this stuff here which talks about the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox. Einstein and his colleagues were very uncomfortable when they heard about quantum entanglement and devised the EPR paradox to 'prove' that it couldn't be true (meaning that while you hadn't observed the particle yet it still has a state). It was proved in one line of algebra that this idea of "hidden" variables couldn't be true.
As I said above though, quantum entanglement still does not imply faster than light communication. You cannot affect which state the particle goes into, even though it doesn't 'decide' on its state until you observe it.
I did initially, when I dropped my "christianity"..however that was only a brief period and I have never had any "doubts" for several years now. Would there be any reasons for me (us) to have doubts?
So are you admitting you have no evidence to support your claims? It sure seems like you've been trying to come up with some all this time.
There's no reason to believe anyone created it. We don't know exactly why the universe exists, but science is at least working on it while religion just made up an answer and decided to call it a day.
If a being created the universe for life, he certainly didn't tune it very well for us. We could be taken out by a number of astronomical events as has happened in the past.
So if the universe existed first then where did it come from or are you saying the universe is infinite and had no beginning contrary to scientific belief/evidence?
Evidence? All subjective but I'm not here to convince just share.
And science should continue to unravell God's creation.
As for you questioning the way God created it and how these astronomical events could wipe us out...well they haven't so maybe that is more evidence of God's mighty hand. But really it is impossible for the human mind to imagine how a being capable of creating this whole vast universe and life could possibly think, at least to me. I do not claim to know what God thinks but I can at some point accept that a being so incredible has reason.
You were the one who tried to draw a relationship between us not being able to observe everything with our unaided senses and the idea that a creator god exists, so you tell us what it is about.
That's nice. Why should I believe you instead of thousands of other stories also backed up by zero evidence?
This question is not off limits at all. I was pointing out that there is no more evidence for everything being created versus just existing without God creating it.
And this relationship is merely pointing out that there are many things still unknown in this universe but that it is possible there is a being that "knows all the unknown things" that man doesn't.
As for believing me I don't really care. I'm just sharing my thoughts...take it or leave it...no offence.
So if the universe existed first then where did it come from or are you saying the universe is infinite and had no beginning contrary to scientific belief/evidence?
A temporally infinite universe is not contrary to scientific evidence and theory. In fact, String Theory (which hasn't been proven but may some day) expects a temporally infinite universe that goes through occasional big bangs. Fact is we don't know but the God Theory has absolutely no evidence supporting it and all religions have been thoroughly disproven.
A temporally infinite universe is not contrary to scientific evidence and theory. In fact, String Theory (which hasn't been proven but may some day) expects a temporally infinite universe that goes through occasional big bangs. Fact is we don't know but the God Theory has absolutely no evidence supporting it and all religions have been thoroughly disproven.
Scientist extimate the universe, the one we exist in is 13-15 billion years old. It started with the big bang. So very finite.
No.Never any more, especially after 3 years of listening to the reasons that confirmed theists believe, right here in City-Data.
Their stated utter absurdities have firmly convinced me of the ABSOLUTE impossibility of any such iconic, absolute, omnipowerful and omniscient God-figure who can make it all up, instantly, out of nothing.
And then His disciples completely disavow the existence of the Evolution of organisms, the age of the earth & universe through highly selective denials of the known facts, of relentlessly making stuff up about this universe, Genesis and talking snakes... <sigh>.
Alternate Question: Who could possibly buy into all that? You'd have to be entirely incapable of critical independent thinking yourself! And... who'd want THAT either?
Final Fact: The mythical Flying Spaghetti Monster is FAR MORE PLAUSIBLE! At least I can see him, feel him, eat him and thus get some real satisfaction and nutrient value out of a plate'o-His Pastafarianist Presence! Not so easily accomplished with the Abrahamic God! That's clearly all in the devout theists' imagination, and will be so forever!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yum! Clam Sauce! And... it's real!
