Quantum entangled-photon Chinese satellite.

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 4 15:28:47 PDT 2016


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

> 
> 
>  From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >> 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. 


> Which explains a lot
> of the fascinationhas for entangled photons and related phenomena.

	I don't follow. I don't think absurd ideas are 'fascinating'.
	And at any rate it should be obvious that absurd ideas have no
	place in rational discourse, or 'science'.


>  Einstein never liked the quantum-mechanics idea, famously declaring
> "God does not play dice with theuniverse".    

	A sensible remark, if you take out the god bullshit. And as I
	think you know, there are many so called 'interpretations' of
	QM and not all of them are absurd (i.e. patently false).


> Unfortunately for
> Einstein, dice are actually played. 


	So says one faction of the 'scientific' establishment. Just like
	statists say that the state is legitimate. 


> 
>  >Either this is ordinary EM
>  > phenomena that propagate at the so called speed of light, or
>  > it is something else which could propagate at 'faster than
>  > light' speed. 

> It's at least 10,000 times 'c' the speed of light in a vacuum,
> according toexperiments involving fiber optics.  It might be
> essentially infinite.


	It can't be infinite, but it certainly can be faster than
	light. So somebody actually did the measurements?



> 
>   >  If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then some
>   > information must be being transmitted. If no information is
> >    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
> transmitted, and actually USING that method to transmit useful
> information, are (quite strangely) two different things. 


	If you know that 'something' was transmitted, then al least one
	bit of information was transmitted, no? 

	Again, either information is being transmitted at FTL speed or
	not. So, what is being claimed here?

	And if at least one bit can be transmitted, then I wouldn't be
	surprised if more than one bit could be sent too. 



> That, also
> is the amazing implications of entangled photons.

> 
>                Jim Bell
>   





More information about the cypherpunks mailing list