Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 07:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 07:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 05:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-02 05:13 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:47 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:31 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:09 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 09:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 10:57 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-16 11:08 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 03:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:07 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:40 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:43 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-04 09:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-06 10:28 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 12:53 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-05 01:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-05 11:49 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 18:06 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-06 10:25 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 08:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 07:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-07 11:06 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 13:22 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 15:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 12:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:35 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 19:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-09 15:08 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 03:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:27 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:41 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 18:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 19:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 23:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 11:39 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 18:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 16:41 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 04:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:37 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:05 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:18 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-12 09:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 05:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:24 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:39 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 18:54 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:22 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 17:25 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-13 01:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-13 00:19 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 18:49 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 18:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 14:58 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:24 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 14:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-12 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:12 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 16:01 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 05:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-13 06:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 18:58 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 21:02 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-15 18:42 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 17:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 06:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-20 08:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-20 11:19 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 23:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-24 12:09 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:55 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-26 10:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 09:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-25 19:43 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-14 22:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 04:08 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-15 11:13 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-12 12:03 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:15 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-13 13:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:57 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:42 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:15 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:29 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:47 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-11 20:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:31 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 00:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 00:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 16:59 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 13:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:12 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:37 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-13 12:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 18:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-11 16:35 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 14:53 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 12:22 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 18:47 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-08 15:33 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 21:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-10 00:27 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-11-28 07:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-29 15:50 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:21 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:40 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:55 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:28 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:31 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 12:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:25 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 21:23 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 21:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:38 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 22:50 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:02 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 17:40 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:54 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:51 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:41 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-01 19:11 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:42 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 10:20 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 23:32 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 00:53 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 00:03 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 11:14 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 02:03 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 19:33 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:34 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-02 22:49 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:21 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:30 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 09:21 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-04 10:00 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 17:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 16:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 09:00 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-05 14:03 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-05 22:50 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 12:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-04 20:07 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 11:14 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-02 05:46 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 08:26 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 09:38 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-03 17:25 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-02 10:43 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 08:43 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-03 16:56 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 12:41 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-03 13:29 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 16:30 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-04 11:56 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 16:52 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 05:58 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:34 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-04 18:04 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-07 06:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:35 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 11:52 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:44 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:04 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 23:54 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 11:32 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 20:15 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:51 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:55 +0100
Re: Faster than the speed of light Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:48 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:16 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:20 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 12:11 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:45 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 16:55 -0600
Re: Faster than the speed of light Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-21 23:15 +0000
Re: Faster than the speed of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-22 12:16 +1100
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 17:48 -0800
Re: Faster than the speed of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-21 16:41 -0800
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3lamt$daa$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371263 |
суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 10:20:35 +1100 пользователь Sylvia Else написал: > On 2/12/2015 8:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>However, quantum entanglement >> was experimentally confirmed later (after Einstein’s death). > > You seem to be assuming that "spooky action at a distance" is the same > as entanglement. It's not. Entanglement is a predicted correlation > between measurements. Nothing more. Ahahahahaa Sylvia. PointedHead is so stupid unable to sense that "entanglement" is in fact NOT even an action at distance. LOL. Of course is a correlation. Teach him what a math/physics correlation is, Sylvia. Unbelievable this pointed-head, I suspect he must not even be an almost half of an engineer. Good post, I like good posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 00:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2754458.KSOMVSVrb0@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #371263 |
Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 2/12/2015 8:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> “Spooky action at a distance” is _not_, different from what you stated,
>> “a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not only
>> no evidence at all […]”. Instead, it is Einstein’s derision of the very
>> idea of quantum entanglement. However, quantum entanglement was
>> experimentally confirmed later (after Einstein’s death).
>
> You seem to be assuming that "spooky action at a distance" is the same
> as entanglement. It's not.
Certainly it is not “a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which
there is not only no evidence at all […]” as you claimed.
Regarding whether I am also mistaken:
‘1. Introduction and summary of results. One of the most remarkable aspects
of quantum physics is the notion of quantum entanglement. If two particles
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
are in an entangled state, then, even if the particles are physically
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
separated by a great distance, they behave in some respects as a single
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
entity. The entangled particles exhibit what physicists call nonlocal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
effects. Informally, these are effects that cannot occur in a world governed
^^^^^^^^^
by the laws of “classical” physics unless communication occurs between the
particles. Moreover, if the physical separation between the particles is
large and the time between the observations is small, then this entailed
communication may exceed the speed of light! Nonlocal effects were alluded
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to in a famous 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen [13]. Einstein
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
later referred to this as “spukhafte Fernwirkungen” (spooky actions at a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
distance) (see [12, 25, 30] for more historical background).’ [1]
^^^^^^^^
> Entanglement is a predicted correlation between measurements. Nothing
> more.
Nonsense.
PointedEars
___________
[1] Buhrman, H., and Cleve, R., and Van Dam, W (1998). Quantum Entanglement
and Communication Complexity. SIAM J. COMPUT, 30(6), pp. 1829–1841.
doi=10.1.1.20.8324.
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.20.8324>
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 00:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3lcg1$gil$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371268 |
суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:53:25 +0100 пользователь Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn написал: >> Entanglement is a predicted correlation between measurements. Nothing >> more. > > Nonsense. Anticipated correlation, pointedHead. "Predicted" is strong terminology, since the correlation is already embedded into the system, there is NOTHING necessary to predict. It is like "predicting" that tomorrow 10:00 AM will be daylight. Is not a prediction, but a correlation consequence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 11:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dc6rfgFoeliU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371268 |
On 2/12/2015 10:53 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 2/12/2015 8:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> “Spooky action at a distance” is _not_, different from what you stated, >>> “a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not only >>> no evidence at all […]”. Instead, it is Einstein’s derision of the very >>> idea of quantum entanglement. However, quantum entanglement was >>> experimentally confirmed later (after Einstein’s death). >> >> You seem to be assuming that "spooky action at a distance" is the same >> as entanglement. It's not. > > Certainly it is not “a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which > there is not only no evidence at all […]” as you claimed. > > Regarding whether I am also mistaken: > > ‘1. Introduction and summary of results. One of the most remarkable aspects > of quantum physics is the notion of quantum entanglement. If two particles > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > are in an entangled state, then, even if the particles are physically > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > separated by a great distance, they behave in some respects as a single > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > entity. The entangled particles exhibit what physicists call nonlocal > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > effects. Informally, these are effects that cannot occur in a world governed > ^^^^^^^^^ > by the laws of “classical” physics unless communication occurs between the > particles. Moreover, if the physical separation between the particles is > large and the time between the observations is small, then this entailed > communication may exceed the speed of light! Nonlocal effects were alluded > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > to in a famous 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen [13]. Einstein > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > later referred to this as “spukhafte Fernwirkungen” (spooky actions at a > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > distance) (see [12, 25, 30] for more historical background).’ [1] > ^^^^^^^^ > >> Entanglement is a predicted correlation between measurements. Nothing >> more. > > Nonsense. > > > PointedEars > ___________ > [1] Buhrman, H., and Cleve, R., and Van Dam, W (1998). Quantum Entanglement > and Communication Complexity. SIAM J. COMPUT, 30(6), pp. 1829–1841. > doi=10.1.1.20.8324. > <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.20.8324> > It is apparent from the context in which the phrase "nonlocal effects" is used, that they mean nonlocal results. They're not suggesting any nonlocal actions. I come back to the same point. You seem to be assuming that entanglement, which has been abundantly verified, implies action at a distance (whether spooky, or otherwise). It doesn't. We just don't know how the universe achieves entanglement. Indeed, there may be nothing there to know - perhaps it just is. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 02:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5293285.Jt8EJjuv3N@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #371272 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/12/2015 10:53 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/12/2015 8:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> “Spooky action at a distance” is _not_, different from what you stated, >>>> “a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not >>>> only >>>> no evidence at all […]”. Instead, it is Einstein’s derision of the >>>> very >>>> idea of quantum entanglement. However, quantum entanglement was >>>> experimentally confirmed later (after Einstein’s death). >>> You seem to be assuming that "spooky action at a distance" is the same >>> as entanglement. It's not. >> Certainly it is not “a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for >> which there is not only no evidence at all […]” as you claimed. >> >> Regarding whether I am also mistaken: >> >> ‘1. Introduction and summary of results. One of the most remarkable >> aspects of quantum physics is the notion of quantum entanglement. If two >> particles are in an entangled state, then, even if the particles are >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> physically separated by a great distance, they behave in some respects as >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> a single entity. The entangled particles exhibit what physicists call >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> nonlocal effects. […] Nonlocal effects were alluded to in a famous 1935 >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen [13]. Einstein later referred to >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> this as “spukhafte Fernwirkungen” (spooky actions at a distance) >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> (see [12, 25, 30] for more historical background).’ [1] >> >>> Entanglement is a predicted correlation between measurements. Nothing >>> more. >> >> Nonsense. >> […] >> ___________ >> [1] Buhrman, H., and Cleve, R., and Van Dam, W (1998). Quantum >> [Entanglement >> and Communication Complexity. SIAM J. COMPUT, 30(6), pp. 1829–1841. >> doi=10.1.1.20.8324. >> <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.20.8324> > > It is apparent from the context in which the phrase "nonlocal effects" > is used, that they mean nonlocal results. Fallacy: Wishful thinking. Not supported by any facts. > They're not suggesting any nonlocal actions. > > I come back to the same point. You seem to be assuming that > entanglement, which has been abundantly verified, implies action at a > distance (whether spooky, or otherwise). I did not and I do not. That is a gross misinterpretation of what I posted, and by now I am not sure anymore if that is not intentional. > It doesn't. We just don't know how the universe achieves entanglement. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Methods_of_creating_entanglement> > Indeed, there may be nothing there to know - perhaps it just is. Or maybe, just maybe, you have no clue what you are talking about and do not *want* to know more about it. To spell it out for you: Nonlocal effects are an *outcome* of quantum entanglement *only* (although, as it turns out, not a necessary one). Einstein derisively called these effects “spooky action at a distance” because he did not believe that quantum entanglement was possible, especially as it could not be reconciled with special relativity, namely the speed of light as the maximum speed for the transmission of information. (Although he helped quantum mechanics to start off by explaining the photoelectric effect with the assumption of photons – light quanta –, Einstein eventually did not believe that the probabilistic approach of quantum mechanics was correct [he famously said “The Almighty does not play dice”], and tried to find a unified theory without it instead, which increasily isolated him at Princeton as QM did have successes there.) Since “spooky action at a distance” meant/means nothing else than “nonlocal effects”, albeit in a derisive fashion, “spooky action at a distance” is _not_ “a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all […]”, different from what you claimed. In fact, whether you want to call those observations “nonlocal effects”, or Einstein-derisively “spooky action at a distance”, carefully crafted experiments have shown them to be real. So there is nothing “hypothetical” anymore about them since quite a while ago, and certainly there *is* evidence for them; again, different from what you claimed. Also, they is _not_ just “a predicted correlation between measurements. Nothing more”; again, different from what you claimed. There are *real* property changes in entangled particles (insofar as we can currently define reality: we do need to measure the properties which can influence the measurement itself), which allows for various <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Applications>. Got it? PointedEars -- Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? A: They get Bohr'ed. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 19:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ccc3609c-f44c-4767-90f5-e7927bfcf460@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371274 |
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 5:03:20 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 2/12/2015 10:53 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 2/12/2015 8:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> "Spooky action at a distance" is _not_, different from what you stated, > >>>> "a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not > >>>> only > >>>> no evidence at all [...]". Instead, it is Einstein's derision of the > >>>> very > >>>> idea of quantum entanglement. However, quantum entanglement was > >>>> experimentally confirmed later (after Einstein's death). > >>> You seem to be assuming that "spooky action at a distance" is the same > >>> as entanglement. It's not. > >> Certainly it is not "a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for > >> which there is not only no evidence at all [...]" as you claimed. > >> > >> Regarding whether I am also mistaken: > >> > >> '1. Introduction and summary of results. One of the most remarkable > >> aspects of quantum physics is the notion of quantum entanglement. If two > >> particles are in an entangled state, then, even if the particles are > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> physically separated by a great distance, they behave in some respects as > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> a single entity. The entangled particles exhibit what physicists call > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> nonlocal effects. [...] Nonlocal effects were alluded to in a famous 1935 > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen [13]. Einstein later referred to > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> this as "spukhafte Fernwirkungen" (spooky actions at a distance) > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> (see [12, 25, 30] for more historical background).' [1] > >> > >>> Entanglement is a predicted correlation between measurements. Nothing > >>> more. > >> > >> Nonsense. > >> [...] > >> ___________ > >> [1] Buhrman, H., and Cleve, R., and Van Dam, W (1998). Quantum > >> [Entanglement > >> and Communication Complexity. SIAM J. COMPUT, 30(6), pp. 1829-1841. > >> doi=10.1.1.20.8324. > >> <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.20.8324> > > > > It is apparent from the context in which the phrase "nonlocal effects" > > is used, that they mean nonlocal results. > > Fallacy: Wishful thinking. Not supported by any facts. > > > They're not suggesting any nonlocal actions. > > > > I come back to the same point. You seem to be assuming that > > entanglement, which has been abundantly verified, implies action at a > > distance (whether spooky, or otherwise). > > I did not and I do not. That is a gross misinterpretation of what I posted, > and by now I am not sure anymore if that is not intentional. > > > It doesn't. We just don't know how the universe achieves entanglement. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Methods_of_creating_entanglement> > > > Indeed, there may be nothing there to know - perhaps it just is. > > Or maybe, just maybe, you have no clue what you are talking about and do not > *want* to know more about it. To spell it out for you: > > Nonlocal effects are an *outcome* of quantum entanglement *only* (although, > as it turns out, not a necessary one). Einstein derisively called these > effects "spooky action at a distance" because he did not believe that > quantum entanglement was possible, especially as it could not be reconciled > with special relativity, namely the speed of light as the maximum speed for > the transmission of information. (Although he helped quantum mechanics to > start off by explaining the photoelectric effect with the assumption of > photons - light quanta -, Einstein eventually did not believe that the > probabilistic approach of quantum mechanics was correct [he famously said > "The Almighty does not play dice"], and tried to find a unified theory > without it instead, which increasily isolated him at Princeton as QM did > have successes there.) > > Since "spooky action at a distance" meant/means nothing else than "nonlocal > effects", albeit in a derisive fashion, "spooky action at a distance" is > _not_ "a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not > only no evidence at all [...]", different from what you claimed. > > In fact, whether you want to call those observations "nonlocal effects", or > Einstein-derisively "spooky action at a distance", carefully crafted > experiments have shown them to be real. So there is nothing "hypothetical" > anymore about them since quite a while ago, and certainly there *is* > evidence for them; again, different from what you claimed. > > Also, they is _not_ just "a predicted correlation between measurements. > Nothing more"; again, different from what you claimed. There are *real* > property changes in entangled particles (insofar as we can currently define > reality: we do need to measure the properties which can influence the > measurement itself), which allows for various > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Applications>. > > Got it? > > > PointedEars > -- > Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? > A: They get Bohr'ed. > > (from: WolframAlpha) What's the point of "quantum bits"? Basically it's along these lines, it's a source of random bits, that can be shared. So, these are generated at some constant rate at a central emitter. Systolically these are pumped at c (with loss and what probably less) so that each detector gets a bit and when it reads the bit, it's the same as the other one gets. But, that doesn't advise whether the other one gets it nor does it advise what the other one expected it to be. This is where then those bits as guiding the entropy coder (adjusting expectations each in what information the detectors send to each other) basically is no different than them sharing the bit that is sent at c. If the event is detected by B when A interferes with it only, then that would be "spooky action at a distance". But, they either both look, or don't, or the "random" bit found by one is no information to the other. Can someone actually explain how "quantum entangled particles" or 'q-bit logic states' are supposed to convey information at greater than c? No, it's not done. The other meaning or definition of q-bit is where it is in superposition where then the solution is basically cached contingent the bit, then when the input arrives it as in one "clock cycle" available the result, but this could also be worked up in photonics and caching. Please someone explain why "quantum cryptography" is supposed to work, where the ends detect the quantum bit or not, they always get a zero/one that is basically random, and basically works "after the fact" for message integrity checks instead of "unbreakable".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 10:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1bbcaba-4c20-4600-a5fa-0781ece3d6aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371275 |
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 7:33:51 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 5:03:20 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > On 2/12/2015 10:53 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>> On 2/12/2015 8:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > >>>> "Spooky action at a distance" is _not_, different from what you stated, > > >>>> "a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not > > >>>> only > > >>>> no evidence at all [...]". Instead, it is Einstein's derision of the > > >>>> very > > >>>> idea of quantum entanglement. However, quantum entanglement was > > >>>> experimentally confirmed later (after Einstein's death). > > >>> You seem to be assuming that "spooky action at a distance" is the same > > >>> as entanglement. It's not. > > >> Certainly it is not "a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for > > >> which there is not only no evidence at all [...]" as you claimed. > > >> > > >> Regarding whether I am also mistaken: > > >> > > >> '1. Introduction and summary of results. One of the most remarkable > > >> aspects of quantum physics is the notion of quantum entanglement. If two > > >> particles are in an entangled state, then, even if the particles are > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> physically separated by a great distance, they behave in some respects as > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> a single entity. The entangled particles exhibit what physicists call > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> nonlocal effects. [...] Nonlocal effects were alluded to in a famous 1935 > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen [13]. Einstein later referred to > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> this as "spukhafte Fernwirkungen" (spooky actions at a distance) > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> (see [12, 25, 30] for more historical background).' [1] > > >> > > >>> Entanglement is a predicted correlation between measurements. Nothing > > >>> more. > > >> > > >> Nonsense. > > >> [...] > > >> ___________ > > >> [1] Buhrman, H., and Cleve, R., and Van Dam, W (1998). Quantum > > >> [Entanglement > > >> and Communication Complexity. SIAM J. COMPUT, 30(6), pp. 1829-1841. > > >> doi=10.1.1.20.8324. > > >> <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.20.8324> > > > > > > It is apparent from the context in which the phrase "nonlocal effects" > > > is used, that they mean nonlocal results. > > > > Fallacy: Wishful thinking. Not supported by any facts. > > > > > They're not suggesting any nonlocal actions. > > > > > > I come back to the same point. You seem to be assuming that > > > entanglement, which has been abundantly verified, implies action at a > > > distance (whether spooky, or otherwise). > > > > I did not and I do not. That is a gross misinterpretation of what I posted, > > and by now I am not sure anymore if that is not intentional. > > > > > It doesn't. We just don't know how the universe achieves entanglement. > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Methods_of_creating_entanglement> > > > > > Indeed, there may be nothing there to know - perhaps it just is. > > > > Or maybe, just maybe, you have no clue what you are talking about and do not > > *want* to know more about it. To spell it out for you: > > > > Nonlocal effects are an *outcome* of quantum entanglement *only* (although, > > as it turns out, not a necessary one). Einstein derisively called these > > effects "spooky action at a distance" because he did not believe that > > quantum entanglement was possible, especially as it could not be reconciled > > with special relativity, namely the speed of light as the maximum speed for > > the transmission of information. (Although he helped quantum mechanics to > > start off by explaining the photoelectric effect with the assumption of > > photons - light quanta -, Einstein eventually did not believe that the > > probabilistic approach of quantum mechanics was correct [he famously said > > "The Almighty does not play dice"], and tried to find a unified theory > > without it instead, which increasily isolated him at Princeton as QM did > > have successes there.) > > > > Since "spooky action at a distance" meant/means nothing else than "nonlocal > > effects", albeit in a derisive fashion, "spooky action at a distance" is > > _not_ "a hypothetical mechanism behind entanglement for which there is not > > only no evidence at all [...]", different from what you claimed. > > > > In fact, whether you want to call those observations "nonlocal effects", or > > Einstein-derisively "spooky action at a distance", carefully crafted > > experiments have shown them to be real. So there is nothing "hypothetical" > > anymore about them since quite a while ago, and certainly there *is* > > evidence for them; again, different from what you claimed. > > > > Also, they is _not_ just "a predicted correlation between measurements. > > Nothing more"; again, different from what you claimed. There are *real* > > property changes in entangled particles (insofar as we can currently define > > reality: we do need to measure the properties which can influence the > > measurement itself), which allows for various > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Applications>. > > > > Got it? > > > > > > PointedEars > > -- > > Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy? > > A: They get Bohr'ed. > > > > (from: WolframAlpha) > > > What's the point of "quantum bits"? > > Basically it's along these lines, it's a source > of random bits, that can be shared. So, these > are generated at some constant rate at a central > emitter. Systolically these are pumped at c > (with loss and what probably less) so that each > detector gets a bit and when it reads the bit, it's > the same as the other one gets. But, that doesn't > advise whether the other one gets it nor does it > advise what the other one expected it to be. This > is where then those bits as guiding the entropy coder > (adjusting expectations each in what information the > detectors send to each other) basically is no different > than them sharing the bit that is sent at c. > > If the event is detected by B when A interferes with > it only, then that would be "spooky action at a distance". > But, they either both look, or don't, or the "random" bit > found by one is no information to the other. > > Can someone actually explain how "quantum entangled > particles" or 'q-bit logic states' are supposed to convey > information at greater than c? No, it's not done. > > The other meaning or definition of q-bit is where it > is in superposition where then the solution is basically > cached contingent the bit, then when the input arrives > it as in one "clock cycle" available the result, but this > could also be worked up in photonics and caching. > > Please someone explain why "quantum cryptography" > is supposed to work, where the ends detect the quantum > bit or not, they always get a zero/one that is basically > random, and basically works "after the fact" for message > integrity checks instead of "unbreakable". If you get going faster than 0.5c then you'll find things brought along with you and the destination will begin observe you approaching quite rapidly. This is about "reducing distance" not "going faster than light speed". (I believe in flat space-time where this "curving" space is more easily seeing "warp" effects as via ">0.5c" then for the notion of systems that "warp back and forth" in the carriage of "bits" of information, at effectively ">0.5c" to observers outside the system.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 22:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dc846hF33lmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371274 |
On 2/12/2015 12:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > There are *real* > property changes in entangled particles (insofar as we can currently define > reality: we do need to measure the properties which can influence the > measurement itself), which allows for various > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Applications>. Quantum mechanics certainly makes no such claim, and no one has ever seen a property change in an entangled particle. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 10:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <yOudnfeLlpzyh8LLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371274 |
On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 7:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Nonlocal effects are an *outcome* of quantum entanglement *only* (although, > as it turns out, not a necessary one). Einstein derisively called these > effects “spooky action at a distance” because he did not believe that > quantum entanglement was possible, especially as it could not be reconciled > with special relativity, namely the speed of light as the maximum speed for > the transmission of information. In 1935 it was not known how to reconcile quantum entanglement with SR. TODAY it is well known -- QED has entanglement and is Lorentz invariant. Note that the "speed limit" of SR applies to the transfer of energy. Note also that the transfer of energy is required to transfer information. And note further that quantum entanglement cannot be used to transfer either energy or information between the two measurement locations. IOW: correlation is not causation. Quantum entanglement is correlation. The words "action at a distance" imply causation, and so are not applicable to EPR-type experiments. > In fact, whether you want to call those observations “nonlocal effects”, or > Einstein-derisively “spooky action at a distance”, carefully crafted > experiments have shown them to be real. No. They have shown the CORRELATIONS to be real, but not the ACTION implied by "action at a distance". Repeat the mantra: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. > Also, they is _not_ just “a predicted correlation between measurements. > Nothing more”; again, different from what you claimed. You are wrong, correlation between measurements is THE ONLY THING that quantum entanglement implies. > There are *real* > property changes in entangled particles Not true [#]. You need to learn what QED _REALLY_ says about this. You have either read poor descriptions and/or have added your own misconceptions to them. Consider two particles with entangled spins separated to locations A and B. Each has a particle with unknown spin. Now A measures the spin and can immediately determine the results of spin measurements for both particles. But B still has a particle with unknown spin -- A knows what a measurement will yield, but B does not. NOTE: The English language does not reflect the math very well. Mathematically, the locations of the particles are represented as the positions at which the vertex functions for the measurements are evaluated, BUT THE SPIN INDICES HAVE NO ARGUMENTS (i.e. no place to put a location). Mathematically the two particles share a single spin state WHICH HAS NO LOCATION. Note to experts: this is (obviously) using the configuration space representation, not the momentum space representation (which is much more familiar). I am of course speaking rather loosely. [#] (Read the above paragraphs before this footnote.) The situation in QED is that one cannot consider the two particles to have individual spins. Speaking loosely: the measurement of A's spin "collapses the spin wavefunction" to conform to the result of the measurement. This includes restricting the result of B's measurement. This "collapse" transfers no energy or information from A to B, it merely exploits a correlation in the spin wavefunction that was there from the time that the spin-entangled state was constructed. Note to non-experts: it OUGHT to be obvious that there is a lot going on that simple English descriptions do not describe very well. So do not rely on such descriptions -- this is a subtle situation that requires CONSIDERABLE study to understand. Note that even though I was speaking loosely above, my description includes a lot more caveats and conditions than most such descriptions. Sound bites are WOEFULLY INADEQUATE to capture the subtleties. > Got it? I do, you don't; I believe Ms. Else does. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3n9qs$i9i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371308 |
суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 10:21:03 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts написал: > On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 7:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Nonlocal effects are an *outcome* of quantum entanglement *only* >> (although, >> as it turns out, not a necessary one). Einstein derisively called > > IOW: correlation is not causation. Quantum entanglement is correlation. > > The words "action at a distance" imply causation, and so are not > applicable to EPR-type experiments. Excellent post. Exactly what I said to that moron. Entanglement is NOT "spooky action at distance". I also remember you disagreed with me first time. LOL. It's good you are able to repair. Indirectly and implicit, but still, good enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 09:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bacd571e-7a6f-4a60-a8d0-00fbcbeb388b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371274 |
On December 1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> I come back to the same point. You seem to be assuming that >> entanglement, which has been abundantly verified, implies >> action at a distance > > I did not and I do not. That is a gross misinterpretation of > what I posted, and by now I am not sure anymore if that is not > intentional. > >> It doesn't. We just don't know how the universe achieves entanglement. > there is not > only no evidence at all [...]", different from what you claimed. > > In fact, w > Also, they is _not_ just "a predicted correlation between > measurements. Nothing more"; again, different from what you > claimed. There are *real* property changes in entangled particles This looks like one of those debates without disagreement. The difference is semantics only, not content. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 10:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcbvt8F2rv8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371377 |
On 4/12/2015 4:21 AM, RichD wrote: > On December 1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> I come back to the same point. You seem to be assuming that >>> entanglement, which has been abundantly verified, implies >>> action at a distance >> >> I did not and I do not. That is a gross misinterpretation of >> what I posted, and by now I am not sure anymore if that is not >> intentional. >> >>> It doesn't. We just don't know how the universe achieves entanglement. >> > there is not >> only no evidence at all [...]", different from what you claimed. >> >> In fact, w >> Also, they is _not_ just "a predicted correlation between >> measurements. Nothing more"; again, different from what you >> claimed. There are *real* property changes in entangled particles > > This looks like one of those debates without disagreement. > The difference is semantics only, not content. > > -- > Rich > If references to "spooky action at a distance" were just a colourful way of describing the observed correlations, that would be true. But Thomas' comments continue to suggest he intends rather more than that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 17:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3qjio$vat$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371388 |
On 12/3/2015 5:00 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/12/2015 4:21 AM, RichD wrote: >> On December 1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> I come back to the same point. You seem to be assuming that >>>> entanglement, which has been abundantly verified, implies >>>> action at a distance >>> >>> I did not and I do not. That is a gross misinterpretation of >>> what I posted, and by now I am not sure anymore if that is not >>> intentional. >>> >>>> It doesn't. We just don't know how the universe achieves entanglement. >>> >> there is not >>> only no evidence at all [...]", different from what you claimed. >>> >>> In fact, w >>> Also, they is _not_ just "a predicted correlation between >>> measurements. Nothing more"; again, different from what you >>> claimed. There are *real* property changes in entangled particles >> >> This looks like one of those debates without disagreement. >> The difference is semantics only, not content. >> >> -- >> Rich >> > > If references to "spooky action at a distance" were just a colourful way > of describing the observed correlations, that would be true. > > But Thomas' comments continue to suggest he intends rather more than that. > > Sylvia. My understanding is that it was Einstein's view that the principle of locality held, which means that correlations between two spatially separated physical entities could only be associated with a causal influence from one to the other, which by necessity would then be limited to the speed of light. He considered correlations between two separate objects WITHOUT accounting for that causal connection to be "spooky" and against his firmly-seated intuition. I think the thing Einstein in the end had difficulty with is the idea that the two spatially separated bodies could in fact be not PHYSICALLY separable, and that they are rather ONE physical state. This is what quantum entanglement really means, as far as I can tell. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 16:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f0cd8e89-56d9-4d06-9a83-ed858be52fc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371389 |
On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 5:34:51 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/3/2015 5:00 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 4/12/2015 4:21 AM, RichD wrote: > >> On December 1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> I come back to the same point. You seem to be assuming that > >>>> entanglement, which has been abundantly verified, implies > >>>> action at a distance > >>> > >>> I did not and I do not. That is a gross misinterpretation of > >>> what I posted, and by now I am not sure anymore if that is not > >>> intentional. > >>> > >>>> It doesn't. We just don't know how the universe achieves entanglement. > >>> > >> there is not > >>> only no evidence at all [...]", different from what you claimed. > >>> > >>> In fact, w > >>> Also, they is _not_ just "a predicted correlation between > >>> measurements. Nothing more"; again, different from what you > >>> claimed. There are *real* property changes in entangled particles > >> > >> This looks like one of those debates without disagreement. > >> The difference is semantics only, not content. > >> > >> -- > >> Rich > >> > > > > If references to "spooky action at a distance" were just a colourful way > > of describing the observed correlations, that would be true. > > > > But Thomas' comments continue to suggest he intends rather more than that. > > > > Sylvia. > > My understanding is that it was Einstein's view that the principle of > locality held, which means that correlations between two spatially > separated physical entities could only be associated with a causal > influence from one to the other, which by necessity would then be > limited to the speed of light. He considered correlations between two > separate objects WITHOUT accounting for that causal connection to be > "spooky" and against his firmly-seated intuition. > > I think the thing Einstein in the end had difficulty with is the idea > that the two spatially separated bodies could in fact be not PHYSICALLY > separable, and that they are rather ONE physical state. This is what > quantum entanglement really means, as far as I can tell. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Yes; regardless, of the distance, there will be only one physical state.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 09:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DZednX9H0sgTN_zLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371389 |
On 12/3/15 12/3/15 5:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > My understanding is that it was Einstein's view that the principle of locality > held, which means that correlations between two spatially separated physical > entities could only be associated with a causal influence from one to the other, > which by necessity would then be limited to the speed of light. He considered > correlations between two separate objects WITHOUT accounting for that causal > connection to be "spooky" and against his firmly-seated intuition. > > I think the thing Einstein in the end had difficulty with is the idea that the > two spatially separated bodies could in fact be not PHYSICALLY separable, and > that they are rather ONE physical state. This is what quantum entanglement > really means, as far as I can tell. Yes to all that, except that in these EPR-type experiments the "one physical state" applies only to the spins of the particles. The two particles can have completely different locations, momenta, energies, etc. But their spins share a common state -- when the individual particles' spins are measured, they are found to be correlated by their common state. In QED and the standard model, spins are not the only aspects of particle states that behave this way, and momenta and energies can also be correlated (but it can be difficult to preserve those correlations once the particles are separated), as can various discrete quantum numbers (baryon number, lepton numbers, etc.). Think about it, and you'll realize that it is conservation laws that induce the correlations between particles' properties.... Nobody is surprised that when a pi0 decays the two gammas go off with equal but opposite momenta in its rest frame; this is, of course, a correlation that is quite similar to the spin correlations in EPR-type experiments. Ditto for the generation of particle/antiparticle pairs in certain particle decays. The "spookiness" of spin correlations is that they can remain even after the individual particles are manipulated in many ways; the non-classical behavior of spins adds to the mystique. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 14:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcf2fvFq5o9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371410 |
On 5/12/2015 2:00 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > In QED and the standard model, spins are not the only aspects of > particle states that behave this way, and momenta and energies can also > be correlate... Indeed, in Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality" he states that EPR was originally conceived in terms of momentum correlated electrons, with the modern spin correlation approach being adopted because it is both conceptually and experimentally simpler. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 22:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <wsadnUKprogKI_7LnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371444 |
On 12/4/15 12/4/15 9:03 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/12/2015 2:00 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> In QED and the standard model, spins are not the only aspects of >> particle states that behave this way, and momenta and energies can also >> be correlate... > > Indeed, in Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality" he states that EPR was originally > conceived in terms of momentum correlated electrons, with the modern spin > correlation approach being adopted because it is both conceptually and > experimentally simpler. Hmmm. Based on this I went back and re-read the EPR paper. Surprise! -- it does not discuss quantum entanglement at all. It is concerned with the question: is quantum mechanics complete? To answer, it focuses on the fact that in QM one cannot simultaneously know the results of measurements corresponding to non-commuting operators. They conclude that QM is not complete. So everywhere I mentioned "EPR-type experiments" I was wrong. I should have said "Bell-type experiments", because the experiments I have in mind are all testing the Bell inequalities using spin-correlated particles. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a87d4e5-648d-4a93-84af-663c4c8ae980@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371474 |
On December 5, tjrob137 wrote: >> Indeed, in Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality" he states >> that EPR was originally conceived in terms of momentum correlated >> electrons, > Hmmm. Based on this I went back and re-read the EPR paper. > Surprise! -- it does not discuss quantum entanglement at all. Say what??? "This makes the reality of P and Q dependent upon the process of measurement on the first system, which does not disturb the second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could permit this." That's 'quantum entanglement' in all but name, and the thrust of the paper. > It is concerned with the question: is quantum mechanics > complete? To answer, it focuses on the fact that in QM one > cannot simultaneously know the results of measurements corresponding to > non-commuting operators. They conclude that QM is not complete. Because they assume that each separate part of the system has an independent reality. "incomplete" means that QM fails to recognize these independent realities, instead treating the quantum state as a unified whole. The rebuttal to this, as given by Bohr, is: yeah, so what? > So everywhere I mentioned "EPR-type experiments" I was wrong. I should > have said "Bell-type experiments", because the experiments I have in > mind are all testing the Bell inequalities using spin-correlated > particles. OK -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 20:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9491539a-f9e8-4095-9114-d9469ca0c3f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371410 |
On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 9:00:32 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/3/15 12/3/15 5:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > My understanding is that it was Einstein's view that the principle of locality > > held, which means that correlations between two spatially separated physical > > entities could only be associated with a causal influence from one to the other, > > which by necessity would then be limited to the speed of light. He considered > > correlations between two separate objects WITHOUT accounting for that causal > > connection to be "spooky" and against his firmly-seated intuition. > > > > I think the thing Einstein in the end had difficulty with is the idea that the > > two spatially separated bodies could in fact be not PHYSICALLY separable, and > > that they are rather ONE physical state. This is what quantum entanglement > > really means, as far as I can tell. > > Yes to all that, except that in these EPR-type experiments the "one physical > state" applies only to the spins of the particles. The two particles can have > completely different locations, momenta, energies, etc. But their spins share a > common state -- when the individual particles' spins are measured, they are > found to be correlated by their common state. > > In QED and the standard model, spins are not the only aspects of particle states > that behave this way, and momenta and energies can also be correlated (but it > can be difficult to preserve those correlations once the particles are > separated), as can various discrete quantum numbers (baryon number, lepton > numbers, etc.). Think about it, and you'll realize that it is conservation laws > that induce the correlations between particles' properties.... > > Nobody is surprised that when a pi0 decays the two gammas go off with equal but > opposite momenta in its rest frame; this is, of course, a correlation that is > quite similar to the spin correlations in EPR-type experiments. Ditto for the > generation of particle/antiparticle pairs in certain particle decays. The > "spookiness" of spin correlations is that they can remain even after the > individual particles are manipulated in many ways; the non-classical behavior of > spins adds to the mystique. > > > Tom Roberts It is not so mystifying. Macroscopically, once objects reach infinity according to our optical instruments and measure- the ability to measure time ceases to exist. Where is infinity? For an unaided observer it is about fifty feet. All of your English is microscopic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 11:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <KMOdnbLnKI_-SMDLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371206 |
On 12/1/15 12/1/15 - 12:41 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/11/2015 11:36 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote: >>> But now, an experiment at Delft University of Technology in the >>> Netherlands suggests that the great man's objections >>> notwithstanding, spooky action at a distance is real. >> >> No, no, no! The experiment verifies entanglement, and few in the >> scientific community would have expected it not to. But that's all. >> "Spooky action at a distance" is a hypothetical mechanism behind >> entanglement for which there is not only no evidence at all, […] > > Utter nonsense. No. Ms. Else is correct. > Quantum entanglement was experimentally confirmed in at > least six experiments already. Yes, of course. But entanglement is CORRELATION, not "causation". There is ample evidence for this curious correlation, but no evidence whatsoever for any sort of "action at a distance". Yes, for a pair of entangled particles, measuring the entangled property of one particle immediately lets one know what a measurement of the same property of the other particle would yield. But that knowledge is HERE, not "there", and no transfer of information is involved (I measured it, I know it; you DON'T). Indeed this technique cannot be used to transfer any information between the two measurement sites. In order to verify the correlation, one must transfer the measurement results via OTHER MEANS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web