4 ms·

I have a couple follow up questions. > a guy Charles who makes two letters So Charles at least knows the information on the cards. Are you essentially saying

I have a couple follow up questions. > a guy Charles who makes two letters So Charles at least knows the information on the cards. Are you essentially saying that there's no way for Alice or Bob to distinguish that information from 'background noise'? If so, that is not a great analogy other than to illustrate a historical & incorrect perspective. Which may have been what you were doing and if so is fine. > measurement "chooses" one of the states in the measurement basis Okay, say you 'do some entanglement of multiple particles stored in two separate tubes' where you know there is some kind of pattern in the entanglement. Is the issue that there is no way to know how to find that pattern without possessing both 'tubes'?

bowsamic 3y ago
> If so, that is not a great analogy other than to illustrate a historical & incorrect perspective. Read the next part, I was discussing the idea thought of by Einstein that was dismissed by Bell's theorem. > Okay, say you 'do some entanglement of multiple particles stored in two separate tubes' where you know there is some kind of pattern in the entanglement. Is the issue that there is no way to know how to find that pattern without possessing both 'tubes'? I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate?
- slfnflctd 3y ago
  Well, we know entanglement happens because of experiments. In those experiments, researchers had to somehow independently verify that the entangled states produced predictable results, thereby demonstrating the entanglement. If you set up the first part of experiment, wherein you know certain particles are entangled, would it be possible for someone on one side of that entanglement to read a pattern from that side alone (if they 'knew where to look') which matched a pattern on the other side? At this point, if my question even makes sense, we're only talking about a very impractical method of data storage... I'm just curious whether even that is possible.
  - Arelius 3y ago
    Sure, you could read the pattern on he other side, you could been use of as a one time pad to encrypt data you actually cared about

bowsamic 3y ago

> If so, that is not a great analogy other than to illustrate a historical & incorrect perspective. Read the next part, I was discussing the idea thought of by Einstein that was dismissed by Bell's theorem. > Okay, say you 'do some entanglement of multiple particles stored in two separate tubes' where you know there is some kind of pattern in the entanglement. Is the issue that there is no way to know how to find that pattern without possessing both 'tubes'? I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate?

slfnflctd 3y ago
Well, we know entanglement happens because of experiments. In those experiments, researchers had to somehow independently verify that the entangled states produced predictable results, thereby demonstrating the entanglement. If you set up the first part of experiment, wherein you know certain particles are entangled, would it be possible for someone on one side of that entanglement to read a pattern from that side alone (if they 'knew where to look') which matched a pattern on the other side? At this point, if my question even makes sense, we're only talking about a very impractical method of data storage... I'm just curious whether even that is possible.
- Arelius 3y ago
  Sure, you could read the pattern on he other side, you could been use of as a one time pad to encrypt data you actually cared about