Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614301 > unrolled thread

Feynman rejected the second postulate.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:46 -0700
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:52 -0700
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-03 10:24 +1000
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 17:39 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-02 19:43 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:23 -0400
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:39 -0700
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:08 -0400
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:31 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:45 -0700
                  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:50 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 01:01 -0400
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 09:52 +0200
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-03 12:16 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:04 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:28 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:53 -0700
                  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:03 -0700
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 22:56 +0200
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 10:36 -0700
                  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 21:21 +0200
                    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:27 -0700
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:59 -0700
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:11 -0400
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:12 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-03 13:27 -0500
                  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:02 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:36 -0400
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 18:45 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 19:15 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:05 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:34 -0700
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:49 -0700
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:15 -0700
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:38 -0500
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:03 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:10 -0500
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-02 23:19 -0500
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:22 +0200
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 00:26 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:55 +0200
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 01:23 -0700
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 10:37 +0200
              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 02:01 -0700
                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:43 +0200
                  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 03:03 -0700
                    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:23 +0200
                      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:29 -0700
                      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:33 +0200
                        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:39 -0700
                          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:57 +0200
                            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:08 -0700
                              Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 15:42 +0200
                                Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:53 -0700
                                  Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-07-03 15:21 +0000
                                    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 20:10 +0200
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:34 -0500
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:17 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:17 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:22 -0700
        Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:24 -0700
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:39 -0500
          Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:22 -0400
            Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:06 -0700
      Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:35 -0700
    Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#614301 — Feynman rejected the second postulate.

He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#614303

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:46:52 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source.
Richard Feynman: Light Behaves like Particles “ = PENTCHO VALEV= “Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to
know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you
probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave -
like particles.’

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614304

On 03-July-23 9:46 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source.
Run that past me again. Why does particle behaviour mean velocity is not 
source independent? They look to me to be two unrelated things.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614305

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 03-July-23 9:46 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source.
> Run that past me again. Why does particle behaviour mean velocity is not 
> source independent? They look to me to be two unrelated things. 
> 
> Sylvia.
Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614309

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 03-July-23 9:46 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source.
> > Run that past me again. Why does particle behaviour mean velocity is not
> > source independent? They look to me to be two unrelated things.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source.


Run that past me again, dat sounds like doubletalk...




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614313

On 7/2/2023 8:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 03-July-23 9:46 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source.
>> Run that past me again. Why does particle behaviour mean velocity is not
>> source independent? They look to me to be two unrelated things.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source.

That's not part of the definition of a particle.

Don't forget that the SR speed combination formula works for particles, 
and at relativistic speeds the velocity is not a simple sum.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614316

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:23:38 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/2/2023 8:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 03-July-23 9:46 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source. 
> >> Run that past me again. Why does particle behaviour mean velocity is not 
> >> source independent? They look to me to be two unrelated things. 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source.
> That's not part of the definition of a particle. 
> 
> Don't forget that the SR speed combination formula works for particles, 
> and at relativistic speeds the velocity is not a simple sum.
It doesn't have anything to do with a definition. If the SR formula result is the same as for a particle, it is unnecessary. Ordinary additive velocity suffices. They suffice at the velocity of the Earth and the MMX. They also suffice for all velocities contrary to SR. You are disagreeing with Feynman. I'm with Feynman. You're with Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614322

On 7/2/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:23:38 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/2/2023 8:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 03-July-23 9:46 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means its velocity is not independent of that of the source.
>>>> Run that past me again. Why does particle behaviour mean velocity is not
>>>> source independent? They look to me to be two unrelated things.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.

>>> Particle behavior means something shares the velocity of the source which is the opposite of independence from the velocity of the source.

>> That's not part of the definition of a particle.
>>
>> Don't forget that the SR speed combination formula works for particles,
>> and at relativistic speeds the velocity is not a simple sum.

> It doesn't have anything to do with a definition.

You worded it as if it did. "Particle behavior means something shares 
the velocity of the source."

Remember the speed combination formula works for any speed of anything 
as long as both speeds are c or less.

The speed of light being constant falls directly out of the math. The 
formula is w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). If u=c, the formula simplifies to w=c no 
matter what v is. This is saying it doesn't matter what the speed of the 
source (v) is, light moves at c in all frames of reference.

> If the SR formula result is the same as for a particle, it is unnecessary.

What does that mean? It's the same for particles but what it says isn't 
what you think.

> Ordinary additive velocity suffices.

Not for relativistic speeds. For very small u and v, w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) 
is VERY close to w=u+v and that may "suffice" as a low speed 
approximation. But not for relativistic speeds.

> They suffice at the velocity of the Earth and the MMX.

Again only as a good approximation for low speeds.

> They also suffice for all velocities contrary to SR.

Nope, not for relativistic speeds. Try it for u=.8c and v=.8c.

> You are disagreeing with Feynman.

Nope.

> I'm with Feynman. You're with Einstein.

No, you are quote mining. Feynman said many things that conflict with 
your misinterpretation of that quote.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614326

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:08:09 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
 
> Remember the speed combination formula works for any speed of anything 
> as long as both speeds are c or less. 
> 
> The speed of light being constant falls directly out of the math. The 
> formula is w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). If u=c, the formula simplifies to w=c no 
> matter what v is. This is saying it doesn't matter what the speed of the 
> source (v) is, light moves at c in all frames of reference.
> > If the SR formula result is the same as for a particle, it is unnecessary.
> What does that mean? It's the same for particles but what it says isn't 
> what you think. 
> 
> > Ordinary additive velocity suffices. 
> 
> Not for relativistic speeds. For very small u and v, w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) 
> is VERY close to w=u+v and that may "suffice" as a low speed 
> approximation. But not for relativistic speeds.
> > They suffice at the velocity of the Earth and the MMX.
> Again only as a good approximation for low speeds.
> > They also suffice for all velocities contrary to SR.
> Nope, not for relativistic speeds. Try it for u=.8c and v=.8c.
> > You are disagreeing with Feynman.
> Nope.
> > I'm with Feynman. You're with Einstein.
> No, you are quote mining. Feynman said many things that conflict with 
> your misinterpretation of that quote.
According to Feynman, it matters what speed the source is. It is always C + V= light speed. How can you fail to understand? Light speed always includes the velocity of the source. If you can't understand more than one connotation of the word "means" I don't have much hope for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614328

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:32:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> According to Feynman, it matters what speed the source is. It is always C + V= light speed. How can you fail to understand? Light speed always includes the velocity of the source. If you can't understand more than one connotation of the word "means" I don't have much hope for you.

Holy Cow, you *clearly* don't know the first thing about relativity, and you have just as clearly never actually read Feynman all the way through! Here, get busy...

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

See also...

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/light/constant-speed

"The Special Theory of Relativity is based on Einstein's recognition that the speed of light does not change even when the source of the light moves. Although it might seem logical to add the speed of the light source and the speed of the light beam to determine the total speed, light does not work this way. No matter how fast Einstein rides his bike, the light coming from his headlight always moves at the same speed.

Stationary Light
Light from a stationary source travels at 300,000 km/sec (186,000 miles/sec).

Moving Light
Light from a moving source also travels at 300,000 km/sec (186,000 miles/sec)."

You are obviously way out of your depth here... go take a class somewhere, anywhere...

Relativity is not easy, especially when you simply make it up as you go along.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614331

On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 06:45:51 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:32:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > According to Feynman, it matters what speed the source is. It is always C + V= light speed. How can you fail to understand? Light speed always includes the velocity of the source. If you can't understand more than one connotation of the word "means" I don't have much hope for you.
> Holy Cow, you *clearly* don't know the first thing about relativity, and you have just as clearly never actually read Feynman all the way through! Here, get busy... 
> 
> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ 
> 
> See also... 
> 
> https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/light/constant-speed 
> 
> "The Special Theory of Relativity is based on Einstein's recognition that the speed of light does not change even when the source of the light moves. Although it might seem logical to add the speed of the light source and the speed of the light beam to determine the total speed, light does not work this way. No matter how fast Einstein rides his bike, the light coming from his headlight always moves at the same speed. 
> 
> Stationary Light 
> Light from a stationary source travels at 300,000 km/sec (186,000 miles/sec). 
> 
> Moving Light 
> Light from a moving source also travels at 300,000 km/sec (186,000 miles/sec)." 
> 
> You are obviously way out of your depth here... go take a class somewhere, anywhere... 
> 
> Relativity is not easy, especially when you simply make it up as you go along.

Making wise faces isn't as hard as you think,
poor Al.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614332

On 7/3/2023 12:31 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 9:08:09 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>   

>>> I'm with Feynman. You're with Einstein.

>> No, you are quote mining. Feynman said many things that conflict with
>> your misinterpretation of that quote.

> According to Feynman, it matters what speed the source is. It is always C + V= light speed.

Sorry, he never said that. Nor would he.

> How can you fail to understand? Light speed always includes the velocity of the source.

Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true. BTW did the voices tell 
you it is true?

> If you can't understand more than one connotation of the word "means" I don't have much hope for you.

I know what "w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2)" "means" for different values of u and 
v. In particular what it "means" if u=c.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614338

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm with Feynman.

But unfortunately Feynman isn't with you,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614385

On July 2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> You are disagreeing with Feynman. I'm with Feynman. You're with Einstein.

Feynman was snookered by the proposed superluminal 
communications device, supposedly based on quantum 
entanglement, utilizing quantum state replication.  Until 
he was informed of its essential defect.  

Nobody's perfect.

Look up "fallacy of authority"

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614393

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:16:37 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On July 2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > You are disagreeing with Feynman. I'm with Feynman. You're with Einstein. 
> 
> Feynman was snookered by the proposed superluminal 
> communications device, supposedly based on quantum 
> entanglement, utilizing quantum state replication. Until 
> he was informed of its essential defect. 
> 
> Nobody's perfect. 
> 
> Look up "fallacy of authority" 
> 
> -- 
> Rich
Look up ad verecundium. All of relativity is based on Einstein's blunders.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614396

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:04:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

Waves share the velocity of the source. So the fact that photons exhibit wave behavior does not mean it does not share the velocity of the source. Interference fringe shifts do not disprove that light shares the velocity of the source. "Light has both particle and wave properties. Which property is more relevant to the situation
at hand, however, is what makes these experiments interesting." - "The Young and Feynman Experiments: Is Light a Wave or a Particle?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614397

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:04:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> All of relativity is based on Einstein's blunders.

And yet there is this...

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

And yet, you cannot refute any of them!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614399

On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 22:53:04 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:04:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > All of relativity is based on Einstein's blunders.
> And yet there is this... 
> 
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html 
> 
> And yet, you cannot refute any of them!

And yet, in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep 
measuring t'=t. And yet, Tom's insane screams
that we're FORCED to your BEST WAY - somehow
didn't work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614398

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On July 2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > You are disagreeing with Feynman. I'm with Feynman. You're with Einstein.
> 
> Feynman was snookered by the proposed superluminal 
> communications device, supposedly based on quantum 
> entanglement, utilizing quantum state replication.  Until 
> he was informed of its essential defect.  

Source?

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#614516

On July 3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> You are disagreeing with Feynman. I'm with Feynman. 
>  
>> Feynman was snookered by the proposed superluminal 
>> communications device, supposedly based on quantum 
>> entanglement, utilizing quantum state replication. Until 
>> he was informed of its essential defect.
>
> Source? 

Wojiech Zurek.

Alice and Bob receive a pair of entangled particles.  The idea was 
that each would make multiple copies of the quantum state of the 
received particles.  Then, through redundancy, using statistical 
methods, they could communicate instantaneously.  

It's a clever idea.  Later, someone proved it's impossible to clone a 
quantum state.  It fooled many people.  Though it wasn't intended as 
a hoax, the inventors proposed it as physically permissible.


--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web