I underwent a similar struggle grasping quantum entanglement and came to the same conclusion (instantaneous communication is not possible via QE) years ago. However, recently I've been starting to explore this concept again and have found a new caveat. I can't seem to find a definitive answer that outright dismisses this caveat. Instead of simply measuring the entangled particles, does current theory forbid simply manipulating the spin, polarization, ETC? If two particles are entangled and I could simply change the spin on one, I've just sent information FTL.
I surmise that "manipulation" is equivalent to measurement and will yield same consequence (collapsing the wave function/destroying the entangled particle), but I haven't found a decisive "yes" to this question yet.
At any rate, QE has always fascinated me, regardless it's FTL communication shortcomings.
Methane detection by SAM is negative. There is either no methane or a negligible amount right now. This could change over time, but I'm betting the claims of methane detection from Earth will eventually be blamed on noise and we'll find no methane on Mars over time.
Why is this article tagged as science? An attempt at shoehorning general relativity is made in the article. Other than that, it is not news worthy under the umbrella of science.
I agree. This is the proper way to make a statement, although it is also one of the few instances where I think using the DMCA is justified. Had this organization simply reposted the original video, I would say leave it alone. By dubbing it, they crossed the line.
Even if you're qualified, you certainly should not go on a one-way trip to Mars. I believe the rule of the cowboy should be applied when selecting participants in such a journey. First and foremost, eligible candidates should NOT have living family, especially children and/or a spouse. These types of ties are major problems. Candidates should probably also possess an naval or air force background (like astronauts did in the 1960's) as this type of training prepares one for the type of rigorous mental challenges such a trip is sure to present. A science background would help but I would not think it particularly necessary. Scientific equipment training should satisfactorily compensate for the lack of a science background somewhat (teach them to use the equipment and send the data back here).
I honestly hope we're able to explore Mars further using robots before we send a manned mission there. My fear is that men will contaminate Mars before we've (adequately) ruled out the possibility of native life.
Slashdot Mirror
I underwent a similar struggle grasping quantum entanglement and came to the same conclusion (instantaneous communication is not possible via QE) years ago. However, recently I've been starting to explore this concept again and have found a new caveat. I can't seem to find a definitive answer that outright dismisses this caveat. Instead of simply measuring the entangled particles, does current theory forbid simply manipulating the spin, polarization, ETC? If two particles are entangled and I could simply change the spin on one, I've just sent information FTL. I surmise that "manipulation" is equivalent to measurement and will yield same consequence (collapsing the wave function/destroying the entangled particle), but I haven't found a decisive "yes" to this question yet. At any rate, QE has always fascinated me, regardless it's FTL communication shortcomings.
Methane detection by SAM is negative. There is either no methane or a negligible amount right now. This could change over time, but I'm betting the claims of methane detection from Earth will eventually be blamed on noise and we'll find no methane on Mars over time.
Why is this article tagged as science? An attempt at shoehorning general relativity is made in the article. Other than that, it is not news worthy under the umbrella of science.
I agree. This is the proper way to make a statement, although it is also one of the few instances where I think using the DMCA is justified. Had this organization simply reposted the original video, I would say leave it alone. By dubbing it, they crossed the line.
Even if you're qualified, you certainly should not go on a one-way trip to Mars. I believe the rule of the cowboy should be applied when selecting participants in such a journey. First and foremost, eligible candidates should NOT have living family, especially children and/or a spouse. These types of ties are major problems. Candidates should probably also possess an naval or air force background (like astronauts did in the 1960's) as this type of training prepares one for the type of rigorous mental challenges such a trip is sure to present. A science background would help but I would not think it particularly necessary. Scientific equipment training should satisfactorily compensate for the lack of a science background somewhat (teach them to use the equipment and send the data back here). I honestly hope we're able to explore Mars further using robots before we send a manned mission there. My fear is that men will contaminate Mars before we've (adequately) ruled out the possibility of native life.