Quantum entangled-photon Chinese satellite.

[juan]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:29:07 +1000
Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:58:11PM +0000, jim bell 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:
> 
> >   >  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 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?