The higher court has a tee time.
"Even if this doesn't give us faster-than-light communications"
You acknowledge communications are impossible using QE pairs
You do understand why these are not equivalent statements.
You acknowledge this at the start
No, I don't. That would be proving a negative, which is a logical fallacy.
I'd cave in after a while.
"The drugs are right there, officer. In the cabinet underneath the video camera streaming this whole scene out to YouTube."
It just sits there, looking all gooey and non-Newtonian. It's just so wrong.
This could be the next thing. Forget vegan/vegetarianism.
And when the NSA needs help interpreting intercepted technical data, for example, it subcontracts with local 'domain experts'. In the aviation biz, that would be Boeing. So Airbus, good luck with those bids for aircraft sales.
If you think that a large part of what the NSA and CIA do isn't plain old economic espionage, I've got swamp land in Florida to sell you.
If quantum entanglement is a manifestation of 'communications' through a wormhole, then can we create an entangled particle pair, drag one far, far away and start poking it (with some signal). Then, we should be able to observe it's paired partner and extract that signal.
Even if this doesn't give us faster-than-light communications, it has uses. Imagine a submarine with one of a pair of particles in a transmitter. Wiggle (bounce, or whatever) that particle and watch its partner on land. You now have a comm link (possibly at a high speed) from or to an environment that isn't affected by the r.f. propagation problem. Also, untappable optical (or whatever) links. Because there is no physical medium between the endpoints for the NSA to tap.
Best analogy is Einstein's explaination of how radio works:
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."
*Subject to copyright restrictions, of course.
Current theory states that high speed cosmic particles ionize the air so the lightning can arc.
Seems plausible. The Pacific DC Intertie operates at 1 MV line to line (500 kV line to ground). This is a greater field strength than cloud to ground lightning, but it doesn't flash over (nearly as often). So lightning must depend on some property or phenomena that occurs at higher altitudes, but not at or near ground level.
P.S. Extra points for that 'current theory' pun.
There's got to be a Mexican food angle in there somewhere.
It keeps saying, "Braiiiins! Braiiiins!"
Tweeted from a 787 in flight: "I have a paperclip."
It's not just the knowledge. But understanding and countering the social engineering skills used by many hackers could undermine the proselytizing that many evangelicals do which use the very same social engineering techniques.