Quantum entangled-photon Chinese satellite.

[juan]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 23:33:47 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>  From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
> 
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 21:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >  From: juan <juan.g71 at 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.