Thank you very much. You are gluing multiple things I have in my head together. It's a very clear explanation.

Yes my intuition was "input 1 in one of the particle" (change it's state in a expected way) to observe the behaviour of the other entangled particle. But as you state that, influencing the state of the particle will break entanglement.

But, from there, how are we sure the particles are entangled if we can't act on any of them and reflect a resulting change in the other particle.

I guess we can observe both particles surrounding environment and see that there are similitudes ?

Anyway thank you for your time helping me understand :)

Just trying to understand.

If the other part sends 1 continuously and you know that (communication initialisation). You send 1 to ack "alignment". Then do the same with 0.

The question is. If I send 1 continuously, will the resulting behaviour in the entangle particule be the same or similar in anyway? Or will it change randomly and so we can't "align" on something without another communication method before?

Where are you two friends?

I don't see that as a bad thing I guess unless Austin is some pretty big lab city.

From the article, most of the work is about lab and gene edition. So most of the money should go into that mainly.

I don't remember where in UK/Ireland/Scotland but there was this infrastructure moves a while ago to change pipes from steel to plastic based which support hydrogen transport from what I remember. The results where good but the investment is massive iirc.