On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 23:33:47 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 21:58:11 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
Apparently, that is true. The tantalizing thing is that SOMETHING APPEARS (information, of some nature) to be transferred between one particle and another, distant one, and yet there seems to be no way to use that transfer to actually transmit useful FTL
> Which sounds rather absurd no? Certainly that sounds absurd! It IS absurd!
Oh, OK. So I don't need to bother with patently false theories. Because that's what 'absurd' implies.
No, you obviously don't understand.
Well, I would reply "right back at you" =)
Something can be "absurd" and yet quite real.
Sorry, what you just said is absurd =) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue"
"Absurd" merely explains how we react to something we do not understand.
Now, joking aside, I don't think you get to redefine words at will. That is not the meaning of 'absurd'. See above.
Simple example of thing that appears "absurd": To somebody in 6th grademath, the question "what is the square root of negative 1" looks absurd.
The question is valid and not absurd. And the answer is, there's no square root for -1.
But it isn't absurd to a 12th grader taking calculus.
So if you then make up a different number system(two dimensional), you can define some 'numbers'(actually points in a plane) to be the 'square root' of 'negative' numbers, but it's a matter of convention. Still, there are no absurdities in sight.
Unfortunately for Einstein, dice are actually played.
So says one faction of the 'scientific' establishment. Just like statists say that the state is legitimate.
Scientific dispute exists. It's normal.
Fine. So your assertion that 'dice are actually played' is just an unproven assertion. The party line of the statistical mechanics establishment.
What did you say, above? "So says one faction of the 'scientific' establishment."
Yes, exactly. It cuts both ways.
It can't be infinite
Why not? Have you ever heard the term, "phase velocity"?
Yes, but I don't know what it refers to, exactly. However, I do know that mathematical abstractions and physical reality are different things despite the fact that maths is used to partially describe aspects of reality. Anyway, let's say it can be infinite.
Like I said, there's a difference between knowing something is happening,and being able to actually employ that for useful purposes.
That may be true in general, but I don't think it's valid here. What I'm getting at is, whether *in principle* information can be transmitted. The either is a working setup that can at least transmit 1 bit, or not. It doesn't matter if at the moment you can't stream HD video...
If I see a horse running in the prairie, and yet I cannot capture him, Icannot use him to travel at horse-speed rather than man-speed. Even in the 1s00s, people knew that light traveled at a finite(non-infinite) velocity. Hint: It involved Jupiter's moons
Thanks for the hint. I already knew the story of the danish astronomer. Clever guy.
We simply don't know how to use entangled photons to transmit informationat greater than 'c'.
How do you know it is at all possible? The only way for you to know that is if at least
And there is no guarantee we will ever know how to doso. And if you believe that something must definitely be one thing, or another, I will have to introduce you to Schrodinger's Cat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
...which has the weird property of being able to be alive and dead at the same time.
I'm pretty sure schroedinger's cat happens to be a **reductio ad absurdum** though I admit I never looked into the original soource Schrödinger, Erwin (November 1935). "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik" Does any body have a copy? At any rate : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum if you assume bullshit at 'microscopic' level then you end up with bullshit at 'macroscopic' level. If you start with a certain premise and you end up with an ABSURD conclusion then you know the premise is false. Basic logic. There are no dead-and-live cats, and so it follows there's no 'magical' bullshit at microscopic level either. J.