

Quantum Entanglement Holds DNA Together, Say Physicists - ca98am79
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25375/

======
endtime
This appears to be an instance of:
<http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174>

------
RiderOfGiraffes
To save you time in case you think you saw this 11 days ago - you may have
done so, it was here ...

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1472217>

... but there is no discussion there.

------
jlcgull
... and in other news, pigs have grown wings and are flying!

seriously, why QE? is base stacking plus some electron cloud sharing not a
good enough explanation for dsDNA?

~~~
jlcgull
will the anonymous downvoter please stand up and show some gumption?

~~~
teilo
From the Guidelines:

"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it
makes boring reading.

Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you."

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
jlcgull
not complaining. just asking "why" ?

i hope that is considered fair. if not, then god help HN the day i get
downvoting privileges.

edit:

being downvoted for a comment like this i understand and agree to:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1504855>

but being downvoted without a reply for what i wrote to this thread's
parent... simply makes no sense!

~~~
tome
The reason it is annoying is that 5 hours later some HN readers who actually
understood your comment have upvoted your post to 4.

Now your complaint is sticking around completely redundantly and this whole
thread is taking up a lot of screen real-estate.

~~~
jlcgull
all right, point taken. and dare i say, lesson learned.

however, it does represent, at least to me, a flaw in the whole HN voting
system; given that user privileges are tied to karma points, i feel that
upvotes should be allowed as they are now, but downvotes __must__ require some
form of response from the downvoter(s) as to why they are downvoting anything
( a la /. ). you don't need to write a paragraph explaining why you downvoted
anything, but you should be required to pick at least __one__ response tag
that classifies your reason for downvoting (wrong, inflammatory, trollish or
whatever).

anyways, sorry for taking up screen real estate with all this unneeded
c.r.a.p. i better get back to "real life"[TM] and soon!

------
joubert
As far as I know, quantum entanglement has not been validated yet, as all
experiments since Alain Aspect's 1982 paper suffer from flaws in experiment
design, leading to what is known as "loopholes".

~~~
larsendt
I do believe there have been experiments that have successfully transmitted
data via quantum entanglement.

I don't really feel like digging up a source at the moment though.

~~~
splat
No _data_ is ever transmitted via quantum entanglement (at least, data from
the perspective of the observer). Entanglement is simply when two particles
exist in the same quantum state. (Or, to be more precise, in the same
superposition of quantum states.) When the state is observed (say, an
experimenter examines one of the particles), then the entire wavefunction
collapses to a single quantum state. The two particles in the system therefore
collapse to the same state instantaneously, but no information can ever be
transmitted in this way.

~~~
larsendt
Erm. Isn't it possible to transmit data that way, specifically by affecting
the state of one particle, and observing the other?

~~~
Ralith
"Observing" is another way of saying "affecting the state of."

------
jaekwon
AFAICT, quantum entanglement is a blanket term for unexplained magic. It would
be "real" if they could use this "magic" to construct something that otherwise
can't be explained by anything else.

Is there proof of anything constructive coming out of quantum entanglement?

~~~
teilo
Then I guess you can't tell very far.

I think you are confusing measurable, reproducible quantum entanglement with
the quackish invocation of the term to lend scientific credence to kooky
paranormal theories.

There's a reason that Einstein was freaked out by "spooky action at a
distance" and it wasn't because it didn't exist. It's because it did.

~~~
jaekwon
Have you measured quantum entanglement? I'm trying to.

