On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:29:07 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:58:11PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
being transmitted, then by definition, there's no way to measure > speed and the claim makes no sense. Well, that's the problem. Knowing that SOMETHING is being
> If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then some > information must be being transmitted. If no information is transmitted, and actuallyUSING that method to transmit useful information, are (quite strangely) two differentthings. That, also is the amazing implications of entangled photons.
It does sound like the obvious is being missed - so entangled photon paris can be created, and we can know at one end, if the photon at the other end is "read", and this apparently happens at at a minimum of 10k.c;
Surely, one could simply create a suitably large number of entangled photon pairs, as an array, and then read them, or not read them, at the end you want to "send" information from, and "detect" (so this weird quantum mechanics story goes) those reads at the other end.
Read + Not read = 1 bit.
What seems to be implied in the stories so far is that the information must be transmitted through changing states of a single entangled photon - which assumption makes no sense at all. There's a purported phenomena, use it!
Yep. It either works or not. And if it works you should be able to get some 'macroscopic' result/data transmission (of course the micro/macro divide is just pseudo-scientific, absurd bullshit) I don't know if it works or not, though I notice that Cari posted a source claiming "Everyone agrees that quantum entanglement does not allow information to be transmitted faster that light. " I take that to mean that the authorities don't actually agree, although perhaps the majority says : no. Regardless, if there is something propagates at faster than light speed, then it should be possible to send information using that AND there would be nothing absurd about that, contrary to Jim B's abssurd defense of absurd, pseudo cientific 'interpretations'. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue" It should be self-evident that absurdities have no place in science or even in philosophy.
What are we missing here?