The Copenhagen Interpretation isn't a theory, it it is an attitude.
I'd heard of the hate before but it was so baffling to witness. I left a comment asking for explanations to my above observation and received no replies. As someone who's personally very interested in this type of research, it kinda terrifies me.
Having said that, as someone outside the field who peeks in every once and a while, it does seem like a lot of foundations research (that gets noticed at least) is about constructing flashy abstracts out of simple linear algebra. The interesting stuff always seems to belong to another field, like computation, error correction, encryption, etc. Combine this with many physicists' distaste for philosophy, and you'll get the current attitude towards foundations.
Obviously the easiest way to provoke thought within the skeptic is to ask, “If it is within the realm of possibilities for the human race to invent a driver allowing interstellar travel, why shouldn’t an extraterrestrial race also be capable of it?”
I would assume someone would counter with the fact that extraterrestrial life hasn’t been discovered. A question to often revisited. For all we know extraterrestrial life surrounds their inhabited planets with strict ingress and egress policies.
If you think about how some scientists responded to speculation about Oumuamua you can see how they were nervous about speculation that could be sensationalized.
What about if SETI@home had been programmed by aliens, so we all thought we were looking for them, but the code would never find them? :)
If I collapse the wave function on one entangled particle, is the other entangled particle collapsed as well?
So I would say you are missing something.
Its that they have opposite states when you collapse them. So collapsing one doesn't collapse the other. Its just that when you collapse one (by measuring it) you can know the state of the other (even if it's on the other side of the universe).
The real "spookiness" is that the particles don't have a predetermined state "underneath" their superposition. When you collapse one its odds of being heads or tails are 50/50 up to the moment you collapse it. And when you collapse it you know what reading you will get when you collapse the other one.
I don't know if this is a mathematical deduction or something empirically verified. Technically when you measure one particle the wave function of both collapses, because now you know what the properties of the other particle are.
But it could be like a pair of dice that always land on opposite faces. When the first die lands, the fate of the second die is sealed and it's no longer in a "superpostion" despite the second die still tumbling around in the air. I strongly suspect this is the case, because otherwise, like you said, you could transmit information faster than light, breaking relativity.
Any superluminal signalling method proposed using entanglement has to explain which assumption of the no-communication theorem it's negating, otherwise it's breaking the known laws of quantum physics. Also, explain why nobody's noticed this effect in the lab before and sold it to high frequency traders and then won the Nobel prize.
What I propose is to switch between deterministic and indeterministic process, the former encoding 0, the latter encoding 1. Maybe indeterministic process counts as more than the classical information. Also since it's indeterministic, it has a small chance of miscommunication. Since communication isn't precisely certain, maybe the theorem treats it as failure.
"an entangled state (e.g. a Bell state) is prepared using a Bell circuit or gate by Charlie, a third person. Charlie then sends one of these qubits (in the Bell state) to Alice and the other to Bob. Once Alice obtains her qubit in the entangled state, she applies a certain quantum gate to her qubit depending on which two-bit message (00, 01, 10 or 11) she wants to send to Bob. Her entangled qubit is then sent to Bob who, after applying the appropriate quantum gate and making a measurement, can retrieve the classical two-bit message." (emphasis mine)
Alice physically transmits her qubit to Bob, so it's not superluminal and doesn't break the no-communication theorem.
In other words you can't detect the event of the wavefunction collapsing.
*More precisely, the act of handing one of them a message causes that one to communicate a random message to the other.
> Wu might have been hesitant to discuss evidence of entanglement because throughout the 1950s and 1960s, such quantum-foundations work was stigmatized as junk science. Back then, explains David Kaiser, a professor of physics and history of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the idea of using an experiment to prove or disprove theories about quantum physics or to test for local hidden variables was “not even an inkling” for most physicists. Researchers who explored questions about entanglement often disguised their research because backlash could stymie a promising career.
I suspect their are similar things going on today, like astronomers who want to look for signs of intelligent life but packaging it as something more mundane