You are attempting to counter my argument about apples with one about oranges. Randomness has nothing to do with guessing. It's a fact that information cannot be transmitted FTL. Nothing has ever disproved this, or been proposed to. You can point to things that happened instantaneously in retrospect, once you have measured them, but you can't get the jump on the universe. At least, not via quantum entanglement. I don't know anything about wormholes (not that you mentioned them).
By the way, phys.org isn't peer reviewed and neither is youtube. The peer-reviewed paper that you do refer to absolutely does not lend itself to your interpretation. Once again, there is nothing in peer-reviewed, accepted science, that points to the possibility of FTL transmission of information. If you want to speculate, that's up to you. But saying what I originally responded to - ftl travel is inevitable - is simply wrong, by any framework that currently exists or is reasonably expected to exist.
Nothing needed to be proposed to prove it because the Bell Test was proposed to prove that information CAN'T travel faster than light
and it failed. If the test fails, that means that information was transmitted faster than light.
The paper from nature that you linked back to me argues exactly that, and the crappy youtube video was made by the people who did the test. Like I said, don't blame me for their poor taste in music and sub-par editorial skills. I only linked that video because Fennster couldn't open .pdfs on his phone.
Second article I linked. Again, in the journal nature since you can't cross-reference for yourself.
http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n8/fig_tab/nphoton.2015.110_ft.html
First article.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html
So every paper I linked has been published by the very journal you used as an example of a peer reviewed publication.
Thank you. Now you can get off of that topic.
Randomness has everything to do with guessing, because with language you can define randomness. You've been using the very solution to your own self-perceived problem to argue against a solution.
Let me help you.
I and my partner have agreed on a set standard for communicating before departing for wherever it is we wish to go. In our possession are devices with which we can use to share entangled photons. This is the language with which we have chosen to communicate.
Photons are isolated so that they can be numbered. Each device contains a synchronized clock. Photons will be read on the uptick, and the entanglement of other photons will be broken on the downtick. Qualities of spin will either be an on or an off, none of the exotic qualities. We'll keep it simple today.
On the first uptick the speaker scans the first photon, and the listener scans it immediately afterward. The speaker immediately knows that the listener received an "on" signal, now he must communicate that "on" was indeed what he meant to say.
On the downtick we are going to observe photons 2 and 3. If the entanglement is still intact on photon 2, then that is a confirmation. The listener now knows that "on" was the correct signal because it was confirmed
at a speed faster than light. If "on" was not the intended signal, the speaker would have broken the entanglement on photon 2, thus communicating that the first piece of information that was communicated was not on but off.
The third photon is only used in the case that one party or another believes that an error has occurred in the message. For instance, if the entanglement of the particle on the uptick is broken, you would break the entanglement on both the second and third photon to start the message over again.
And yes, it all happens at a speed faster than light.
Now that's just a truly simplistic example of how it could be done. I am proverbially banging rocks together. When you factor into account things like
Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted, Hyperentanglement, the persistence of information in broken entanglement bonds, etc... things get scary.
Entanglement is shaping up to prove that pretty much every causality paradox that Einstein woke up in a cold sweat over is actually true. Sorry. That's just how it is. The field on this subject is changing so rapidly right now the only people keeping up with it are the people directly involved. Don't keep arguing just because you're afraid to be wrong. We don't need to discuss how many fundamental laws and ineffable facts of the universe you learned while you were in school are no longer true to get to the bottom of this. I have my favorite subjects, and you have yours. I haven't read anything regarding the rapidly advancing field of plate tectonics in almost a decade. If it turned out to be a favorite subject of yours, I wouldn't contest every statement you made, I'd just politely ask what you've been reading on the subject and what your conclusions are.
