When looking at an entangled pair, it's only possible to describe the quantum state of both as one system. That is, a state of one combined thing, not two separate states.

They don't communicate between themselves because the moment you look at one of the particles you are basically measuring both at the same time.

Vela wrote:

I find the simulation theory as enlightening as an infinite stack of turtles. It's just another form of regression. Of course the same could be said of the multiverse models.

If science has taught us anything it's we're not the centre of this Universe. Not only that, it might be there's an infinite amount of Universes. This, and only this, is what science teaches. 

In a sea of infinity we aren't that much. When everyone gets this we can progress. Fuck your ego delusion, let's be shit together, as one.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

When looking at an entangled pair, it's only possible to describe the quantum state of both as one system. That is, a state of one combined thing, not two separate states.

They don't communicate between themselves because the moment you look at one of the particles you are basically measuring both at the same time.

Quantum Radar?

Beijing's state media has made the bold claim that a Chinese defense contractor successfully developed the world's first quantum radar system. The radar can allegedly detect objects at range of up to 62 miles. If true, this would greatly diminish the value of so-called "stealth" aircraft, including the B-2 and F-22 Raptor fighter. But it's a pretty far-out claim.

Quantum radar is based on the theory of quantum entanglement and the idea that two different particles can share a relationship with one another to the point that, by studying one particle, you can learn things about the other particle—which could be miles away. These two particles are said to be "entangled".

In quantum radars, a photon is split by a crystal into two entangled photons, a process known as "parametric down-conversion." The radar splits multiple photons into entangled pairs—and A and a B, so to speak. The radar systems sends one half of the pairs—the As—via microwave beam into the air. The other set, the Bs, remains at the radar base. By studying the photons retained at the radar base, the radar operators can tell what happens to the photons broadcast outward. Did they run into an object? How large was it? How fast was it traveling and in what direction? What does it look like?

Quantum radars defeat stealth by using subatomic particles, not radio waves. Subatomic particles don't care if an object's shape was designed to reduce a traditional, radio wave-based radar signature. Quantum radar would also ignore traditional radar jamming and spoofing methods such as radio-wave radar jammers and chaff.

According to Global Times, the 14th Institute of China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC) developed the radar system last month. The subdivision website describes the "14th Institute" as "the birthplace of Radar industry (sic) in China", employing 9,000 workers on a 2,000-acre research campus.

China isn't the only country working on quantum radar: Lockheed Martin was granted a patent on a theoretical design 2008. Lockheed's plans were more far-reaching, including the ability to "visualize useful target details through background and/or camouflaging clutter, through plasma shrouds around hypersonic air vehicles, through the layers of concealment hiding underground facilities, IEDs, mines, and other threats." In many ways, Lockheed's concept of quantum radar resembles the spaceship and handheld sensors on "Star Trek."

Since the 2008 patent, Lockheed's been silent on the subject of quantum radars. Given what a technological leap such a system would be, it's quite possible the research has gone "black"—highly classified and subject to a high level of secrecy.

So did China really do it? A quantum radar system sounds staggeringly complicated. One Ars Technica writer has said he would be "very skeptical that this will ever see the light of day outside of the lab". A physicist at China's Nanjing University (coincidentally, where the 14th Institute is located) was quoted by the South China Morning Post as saying "serious technical challenges had long confined quantum radar technology to the laboratory."

There are more reasons to be skeptical. China's Global Times newspaper, which ran the story, is a state media organization and arm of the Chinese government. It in turn sourced the story to the Mingpao Daily…which is also described by critics as an arm of the Chinese government. Of course, China wouldn't actually show off this revolutionary military technology if it did work, so proof is not forthcoming. For now, it's good to be skeptical. But you can be sure the Beijing is looking into it. There's no way China wouldn't research a technology that would negate the hundreds of billions of dollars Washington has invested in stealth aircraft.

Also could be a coincidence but the f-117 stealth fighters which the fleet of, were retired 8 years have been seen over tonopah test range in nevada. Hmmmmm...

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/23/watch-two-f-117-stealth-jets-fly-over-nevada-together-8-years-after-retirement/

And by humans I mean religious ones mainly.

It's a bit beyond me, it was a WIRED article. I believe they are postulating that as the particle (a)that is traveling hits an aircraft the the other particle (b) at homebase (part of the entangled pair) will be updated with that information so (b) has the same data as (a).

I'm not a physicist or a quantum physicist so I don't knw if that's possible or not. But thats what the article says. Let's face it the quantum world is wierd anyway.

Like Nigel Farage, why won't Jesus fuck off and die? The Nativity play is causing problems again, but worse.. His best and longest pal (since nursery and the nicest child ever) is a Muslim, and we obviously know the parents well, but explaining God concept is proving delicate. Charlie just wants to know if its true or not, so I tell him. No delicate discussion will wash, he's six years old and also wants to know whose the tallest human ever. Explaining poverty and education delicately seems fine in principle but sounds awful when repeated from the mouth of a six year old in front of a crowd of parents.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Like Nigel Farage, why won't Jesus fuck off and die? The Nativity play is causing problems again, but worse.. His best and longest pal (since nursery and the nicest child ever) is a Muslim, and we obviously know the parents well, but explaining God concept is proving delicate. Charlie just wants to know if its true or not, so I tell him. No delicate discussion will wash, he's six years old and also wants to know whose the tallest human ever. Explaining poverty and education delicately seems fine in principle but sounds awful when repeated from the mouth of a six year old in front of a crowd of parents.

Can you not tell him everyone interprets God differently (in six year old speak) and leave it at that? Or won't that work?

Dinostar77 wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Like Nigel Farage, why won't Jesus fuck off and die? The Nativity play is causing problems again, but worse.. His best and longest pal (since nursery and the nicest child ever) is a Muslim, and we obviously know the parents well, but explaining God concept is proving delicate. Charlie just wants to know if its true or not, so I tell him. No delicate discussion will wash, he's six years old and also wants to know whose the tallest human ever. Explaining poverty and education delicately seems fine in principle but sounds awful when repeated from the mouth of a six year old in front of a crowd of parents.

Can you not tell him everyone interprets God differently (in six year old speak) and leave it at that? Or won't that work?

Yeah, this. You can obviously put your own beliefs on that spectrum (even if they're firmly off to one side). Imo the social aspects of it are worth explaining as much as the theology, ideally in terms other than "the rest of your class are simpletons"

I imagine this will lead to further questions though. The joy of parenthood...

Are Mormons part five or just a series reboot like spiderman?

Childintime wrote:

Mormonism is The Scorpion King of religions - a prequel to a sequel of a remake.

This.  With a spin-off musical.

Gremill wrote:

Whilst Scientology is obviously Battlefield Earth.

Scientology is a warning against inhaling solvents.

And it is really tricky.

Im trying to think back to when I was at school. I distinctly remember a Muslim girl in the year below me having a speaking part in the nativity. A Jewish girl in my year didn't participate.
I think it was a simple thing. "Gemma is Jewish and they don't celebrate Christmas like we do, instead they have Hannukkah".

I am anti-religion now but at that age I don't think it would be a good thing to say I am right, they are wrong.

My combined school I spent most early years at was really progressive, a really amazing environment to grow up in where stuff like religion wasn't preached but taught like History, "Muslims believe x y z , while sikhs follow a b c.". In assembly we had some religious songs but also sang "With a Little Help from my Friends". No child was excluded but no one was forced to sing.

Changed schools for my final middle school year and it was all white, the Jehovah's Witness kids were sent ot for singing time and stood with the naughty kids. That is kinda fucked up.

I don't really understand much of that, too many double negatives or something.

"Evidently factually wrong" is strong phrasing though. I suspect I'll disagree to the extent of the certainty even if I think the same thing to be true/false. Unclear what the subject is, however.

Atheist or agnostic, or Atheist capital or atheist little a? However you want to word it, atheism is a choice, just the same as theism. If your boy is asking about truth, then surely now is the perfect time to explain to him that there are unknowable things. Some of which may become known in time and some of which won't. Teaching him that his friends belief is wrong (no matter how much good intent is meant) seems likely to be divisive