Quantum entangled-photon Chinese satellite.
juan
juan.g71 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 4 23:57:30 PDT 2016
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.
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list