Comments by "Manuell" (@manuell3505) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

@wesjohnson6833 That's a self-contradicting statement. Information is information. How long the verification takes isn't particularly relevant. The setup must be calibrated, or you need more computing power? Doesn't matter. It has to work, that's all.
2
They wouldn't need wires then. Stoopid...
2
@wesjohnson6833 You can calculate the moment on both sides and compensate fpr spacetime difference. Best way for persistent communication requires a ongoing stream of separated entangled particles in both directions. But it probably doesn't work anyway because when different places in the universe physically interact, there's a problem with causality, like the difference between history and furture gets fuzzy. It may be the end of the universe in it's current state.
1
@wesjohnson6833 Both sides need a incoming chain of particles.The conlusion that the entanglement is broken is the information. You only have to make an appointmentwith the other side at a relative time. Here, I'm assuming that it's possible to detect the entangled state without breaking it anyway.
1
@wesjohnson6833 If that's the case, entanglement can't be verified.
1
@wesjohnson6833 I personally believe this whole quantum entanglement thing is hot air and mostly originates from commercial "quantum technology", or the privilege to have a machine that says things that have to be taken for true because nobody can check it. Currently, the world is full of supreme quantum computers. They can even implement them in silicon circuitry.
1
@wesjohnson6833 That assumes that the physical distance between 2 entangled particles influences the way information must be extracted from it. Faster than light is faster than a distance per time unit, nothing else. But the theory states that distance doesn't influence the behaviour. Quantum-entanglement is assumed to eliminate physical distance. That's why it's called entanglement. It's like they have physical contact.
1
@wesjohnson6833 Then what's "entanglement" exactly? You're going in circles... If there's no difference between entangled particles ad unrelated random particles, you don't need a word for anything.
1
@wesjohnson6833 "Whether particles are entangled or not has nothing to do with how fast you can extract information from them" "the distance between the particles changes the time it takes to extract information from it"
1
@wesjohnson6833 Basically that you actually have nothing to base any claims on. That was another contradiction of yourself.
1
Without gravity, there's no downward force. The only difference.
1