Runaway pulsar has astronomers scratching their heads

[Hermit]

Well knowledge has been communicated. Person B knows what Person A's particle spin (or whatever) is, when Person A observes their particle. The fact that it's largely useless information (perhaps there will be a way in the future to make use of such info, I don't know), is not relevant. Look at it this way: If I give you an envelope with a message in it, but tell you to wait till you reach point B before opening it. Is that still information? Of course. And it's analogous to the entanglement argument. Just because the contents of the envelope were known by someone well before it was opened, doesn't change the fact that you have some new information that you didn't have before you opened it. What if there was a delay of years (after you arrived at point B) before you opened it? What difference does the transport make in that case? How it got there is really inconsequential to the fact that it is information.

The difference is precisely that a fact does not become information until it is received. In this case it takes exactly as long as it takes me to open the envelope and read about the fact.

[pErvinalia]

How's that different? In both cases information is received.

[Hermit]

How's that different? In both cases information is received.

You are obviously having a problem grasping the conceptual difference between fact and information. A fact just is, but information about it must be somehow transported to someone, which takes time. So far there is no evidence that the speed of the transport exceeds the speed of light.

[pErvinalia]

What does the speed of light have to do with whether something is information or not?

[Hermit]

What does the speed of light have to do with whether something is information or not?

Erm, have another read of what I said. I said information must be somehow transported to someone, which takes time. So far there is no evidence that the speed of the transport exceeds the speed of light.

[mistermack]

How about this :
I am a million light years from you. I put a note in a special box, that destroys the note as soon as it's opened.
I have a mechanism that sends the box from me to you, over a million light years, instantly.
You receive the box, with the message inside, the instant that I press send.

Has information passed from my location to yours, instantly? Yes.
Can you read it? No.

But as far as I can see, information has traveled a million light years, in an instant.
That's what I'm suggesting. We all know you can't read it, without destroying it.
Does that mean it doesn't exist ?
If you can make a case that it doesn't exist, because the box is rigged, then I'd like to see it. Maybe that IS the case. Maybe it's not.
I haven't seen a proof either way, but I'm interested to know.

I'm just saying that it looks like the PRINCIPLE of no information passing faster than light appears to be wrong. The no-communication theorem might be right, that it will NEVER be possible to read such information. Might be right, might be wrong.
It's not proven. There's a lot to be discovered.

[MiM]

How about this :
I am a million light years from you. I put a note in a special box, that destroys the note as soon as it's opened.
I have a mechanism that sends the box from me to you, over a million light years, instantly.
You receive the box, with the message inside, the instant that I press send.

Has information passed from my location to yours, instantly? Yes.
Can you read it? No.

But as far as I can see, information has traveled a million light years, in an instant.
That's what I'm suggesting. We all know you can't read it, without destroying it.
Does that mean it doesn't exist ?
If you can make a case that it doesn't exist, because the box is rigged, then I'd like to see it. Maybe that IS the case. Maybe it's not.
I haven't seen a proof either way, but I'm interested to know.

I'm just saying that it looks like the PRINCIPLE of no information passing faster than light appears to be wrong. The no-communication theorem might be right, that it will NEVER be possible to read such information. Might be right, might be wrong.
It's not proven. There's a lot to be discovered.

One of the most basic assumptions in quantum theory, and underlying all of this discussion, is exactly that quantum states does not exist until they are read. This is what Bell's theorem (and the experimental proof thereof) proves. So in the quantum world that information does not exist (aka has not travelled) if it cannot be read. Actually it dose not exist unless it is read.

"The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.[1] It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities that fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. The act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27." [Wikipedia]

[pErvinalia]

What does the speed of light have to do with whether something is information or not?

Erm, have another read of what I said. I said information must be somehow transported to someone, which takes time. So far there is no evidence that the speed of the transport exceeds the speed of light.

Once again, what does this have to do with whether something is information or not?? We are discussing information, not the speed at which it transfers. The speed at which it transfers is utterly irrelevant to whether it is information or not.

[Hermit]

Once again, what does this have to do with whether something is information or not?? We are discussing information, not the speed at which it transfers. The speed at which it transfers is utterly irrelevant to whether it is information or not.

Once again, Conceptually, information is the message (utterance or expression) being conveyed. Therefore, in a general sense, information is "Knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance". In other words facts require some form of transport to become information.

We may well speculate that some means of such transport can occur at speeds greater than that of light, and I do hope that at some time in the future evidence for it will turn up, but none such has emerged to date.

[mistermack]

One of the most basic assumptions in quantum theory, and underlying all of this discussion, is exactly that quantum states does not exist until they are read. This is what Bell's theorem (and the experimental proof thereof) proves. So in the quantum world that information does not exist (aka has not travelled) if it cannot be read. Actually it dose not exist unless it is read.

The question becomes, "How can one account for something that was at one point indefinite with regard to its spin (or whatever is in this case the subject of investigation) suddenly becoming definite in that regard even though no physical interaction with the second object occurred, and, if the two objects are sufficiently far separated, could not even have had the time needed for such an interaction to proceed from the first to the second object?"[29] The latter question involves the issue of locality, i.e., whether for a change to occur in something the agent of change has to be in physical contact (at least via some intermediary such as a field force) with the thing that changes. Study of entanglement brings into sharp focus the dilemma between locality and the completeness or lack of completeness of quantum mechanics.

As I see it, that's the whole point of entangled particles. As you pointed out, the quantum state of the second particle doesn't exist until it's read. BUT, it can be read from a million light years away, by reading it's pair. You can fix it's quantum state instantly, from a million light years away.

[pErvinalia]

Once again, what does this have to do with whether something is information or not?? We are discussing information, not the speed at which it transfers. The speed at which it transfers is utterly irrelevant to whether it is information or not.

Once again, Conceptually, information is the message (utterance or expression) being conveyed. Therefore, in a general sense, information is "Knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance". In other words facts require some form of transport to become information.

We may well speculate that some means of such transport can occur at speeds greater than that of light, and I do hope that at some time in the future evidence for it will turn up, but none such has emerged to date.

You appear to be utterly confused. The speed of light and/or the speed of transfer of information has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER SOMETHING IS INFORMATION OR NOT. Repeating you past comments over and over won't change this fact. What is it you don't understand about this exceedingly simple point?

[Hermit]

Once again, what does this have to do with whether something is information or not?? We are discussing information, not the speed at which it transfers. The speed at which it transfers is utterly irrelevant to whether it is information or not.

Once again, Conceptually, information is the message (utterance or expression) being conveyed. Therefore, in a general sense, information is "Knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance". In other words facts require some form of transport to become information.

We may well speculate that some means of such transport can occur at speeds greater than that of light, and I do hope that at some time in the future evidence for it will turn up, but none such has emerged to date.

You appear to be utterly confused. The speed of light and/or the speed of transfer of information has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER SOMETHING IS INFORMATION OR NOT. Repeating you past comments over and over won't change this fact. What is it you don't understand about this exceedingly simple point?

The simple point is that fact =/= information conveyed about a fact. You keep missing it.

[pErvinalia]

Huh? How have I missed that? I haven't said a single thing about "facts". Where in anything have I said have I denied that?? And what the fuck does the speed of light or the speed of transfer have to do with whether something is information or not? Why the hell do you keep repeating this inanity?

[Hermit]

Huh? How have I missed that? I haven't said a single thing about "facts". Where in anything have I said have I denied that?? And what the fuck does the speed of light or the speed of transfer have to do with whether something is information or not? Why the hell do you keep repeating this inanity?

Learn to read. Sleep on it. Try again in the morning.

[MiM]

One of the most basic assumptions in quantum theory, and underlying all of this discussion, is exactly that quantum states does not exist until they are read. This is what Bell's theorem (and the experimental proof thereof) proves. So in the quantum world that information does not exist (aka has not travelled) if it cannot be read. Actually it dose not exist unless it is read.

The question becomes, "How can one account for something that was at one point indefinite with regard to its spin (or whatever is in this case the subject of investigation) suddenly becoming definite in that regard even though no physical interaction with the second object occurred, and, if the two objects are sufficiently far separated, could not even have had the time needed for such an interaction to proceed from the first to the second object?"[29] The latter question involves the issue of locality, i.e., whether for a change to occur in something the agent of change has to be in physical contact (at least via some intermediary such as a field force) with the thing that changes. Study of entanglement brings into sharp focus the dilemma between locality and the completeness or lack of completeness of quantum mechanics.

As I see it, that's the whole point of entangled particles. As you pointed out, the quantum state of the second particle doesn't exist until it's read. BUT, it can be read from a million light years away, by reading it's pair. You can fix it's quantum state instantly, from a million light years away.

Yes I can read it's quantum state from afar, but then I can do the same with a pair of socks. I hide one black sock in a drawer, and send its pair to the moon. The moment I open the drawer, I will know that the sock on the moon is also black. That is not information moving anywhere. The collapse of the quantum state is another thing, and as you say, an issue of locality. And locality is what seems to break down in these interactions, that much is clear. But as you said yourself? information is a concept. The particle on the moon doesn't care or know about concepts. It does not know that it's partner on earth has been measured and their common wave function has broken down. Neither does anyone else on the moon (you cannot determine it by measurement), so where is the transfer of information, especially given that we don't find quantum states existing unless we measure them? Yes, we have it on earth (where we do the measurement on the other particle, but does it really exist on the moon)?