I’d recommend this excellent series if you want a good grounding:
www.rigb.org/…/arrows-time-back-future-1999
And I also found this video which I haven’t watched but I expect will be good and probably attacks your pondering more directly:
Quantum is a struggle for me to understand because, I feel like the current explanations don’t suffice why you can’t transmit information. To me, this still sounds perfectly viable for information transfer… just don’t encode information via polarization. You would encode it as a primitive derived from whether or not state collapse has happened yet or not.
Using the same/similar mechanism they can use to determine collapse happens to both entangled particles at the same time time (faster than light), can they not also determine whether or not collapse has happened at all?
Maybe it’s that checking for collapse will actually cause collapse, thus ruining the information channel. But, perhaps then, you just add more entangled particles. Have some mechanism established with “throwaway” particles that can have their state collapsed either as a chain reaction or via the polling process.
Obviously I’m not the smarted person here… probably a lot wrong with my above assumption. But my point is really that explanations about quantum seem to be unsupportive to the claims they make about quantum.
I’d recommend this excellent series if you want a good grounding:
www.rigb.org/…/arrows-time-back-future-1999
And I also found this video which I haven’t watched but I expect will be good and probably attacks your pondering more directly:
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 week ago
AFAIU you can’t determine whether the state on the other side has been collapsed. All you can say with certainty is the state on the other side after you have collapsed yours.