-9
$\begingroup$

I asked a question Question about entanglement. I would expect that people commenting on the question would be familiar with this phenomenon and its philosophical issues. But someone made a comment that shows a complete lack of knowledge of what entanglement is. When I tried to clarify my question, they made a nasty sarcastic remark, and then claimed that I was the one being off-topic. Just after that, I got a note saying my question was closed, without explanation.

I assume that they closed my question. How can they have that authority if they doesn't know the subject?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The comment on the linked question does not seem to me to be "sarcastic." Sarcasm is when you say the opposite of what you mean. Maybe "flippant" is what you mean? Also I don't think the comment is "nasty" in any sense that would support flagging the comment as inappropriate. The comment does not direct disparaging remarks at a user. The comment seems to be critical of questions that are similar to yours. $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Sep 23, 2023 at 17:45

3 Answers 3

7
$\begingroup$

Only moderators (recognizable by the diamond behind their names) can close questions unilaterally. Your question was closed by three regular users with the close vote privilege agreeing that it should be closed. That you cannot easily see who specifically closed it is intentional design, see this meta post for more information.

If you think other users are unduly sarcastic or otherwise unkind to you, please raise a moderator flag in the future instead of attempting to publicly shame specific users on meta.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Re "Only moderators ... can close questions unilaterally": What about tag gold badge holders? Doesn't it apply here? E.g., from How do you reopen a closed question?: "users with a gold tag badge can unilaterally close questions as duplicates or reopen duplicate questions, provided they use the tag for which they have a gold tag badge" $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 9:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @PeterMortensen The linked question in the OP is not closed as a duplicate, so I do not see why this would be relevant in this context. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ Not that this issue is any of my business, but I can see who closed it. Is this a reputation level thing? (Don’t worry, I won’t divulge their names) $\endgroup$
    – Hokon
    Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 16:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Hokon On questions that are not your own, you can see close votes with 250 reputation. (And don't worry, it's not exactly a secret, there are even ways for the asker to view these users anyway and you can find them in the meta.SE post I linked, I just didn't see any point in explaining them here) $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Commented Sep 21, 2023 at 16:34
6
$\begingroup$

I did not vote to close, and I'm not sure why your question was closed as non-mainstream: in my book your question completely unclear.

  1. Your title refers to entanglement but your question does not. Two particles are arranged to be on different paths and arrive at different detectors at vastly different times. Under what possible scenario would the detectors register the same times of arrival when they arrive at different times?
  2. Exactly what degree of freedom is entangled in your question? Polarization? Spin? Momentum? Something else?
  3. In a comment to an answer you write "And if an orientation was changed between the two arrivals, would the statistics indicate the earlier or the later setting?". What orientation are you talking about? How can changing the orientation of a detector affect the detection time?

Sooo... May I humbly suggest you clarify your question and pay attention to comments before lobbing comments about the qualifications of contributors who have earned the right to vote on closing questions?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I had read on another forum about an experiment. From what they described, it sounded like they were saying that one of a pair of entangled particles was detected, and the other was "swapped" (whatever that means) to a new pair of particles, and these had Bell-type correlations with the other detection. I tried to ask for details, but I couldn't make myself understood. The nearest I could figure was that the first detection had been delayed until the others were available to complete the correlation. $\endgroup$
    – user23467
    Commented Sep 22, 2023 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ I was trying to make a simpler example to ask, without the clutter of the other details, whether such a delay is possible. Sorry for not being clear, but I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the traditional setup of two particles emitted from a common event and entangled by spin. $\endgroup$
    – user23467
    Commented Sep 22, 2023 at 18:17
5
$\begingroup$
  1. Your question is a duplicate because it implicitly asks whether information can travel faster than light, and there are already a great many answers on this site explaining that the answer to that question is "no".

  2. Independently of that, your question is non-mainstream because it is entirely unmotivated, just as if you had asked "Is it possible that particle detectors record incorrect times on Fridays?". That is non-mainstream because there is not a shred of a reason in mainstream physics to think that the day of the week affects the timestamp. Ditto for your question.

  3. If you have some story about why entanglement might cause incorrect timestamps, then you are very confused, but your question could still be on-topic if you provided that story in enough detail so that people could help you pinpoint the locus of your confusion. You did not do that.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I never said anything about "information" or "travel". I merely mentioned entanglement, which has nonlocal correlations. I was trying to understand that, and I explained the reason for my question. $\endgroup$
    – user23467
    Commented Oct 15, 2023 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ I am familiar with Bell's Theorem and its experimental violation. I am also aware that the correlations so demonstrated cannot be used for signalling. If you're suggesting that "a great many answers on this site" deny these famous results, and instead try to pull off a Local Realism argument, then you've got some nerve accusing me of being non-mainstream. $\endgroup$
    – user23467
    Commented Oct 15, 2023 at 22:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .