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 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
| From | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-28 04:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Faster than the speed of light |
| Message-ID | <2a4a52fc-3b33-40c3-bf79-5dff5eabf9bb@googlegroups.com> |
Group: Here is how relativity is going down the drain step by step. SCIENCE PHYSICS What Einstein Got Wrong About the Speed of Light Jeffrey Kluger 22 Oct 2015-10-23 A new study confirms a theory that the great man of physics never much liked If you want to play in the quantum sandbox, you have to accept some bizarre rules. You have to accept that a single thing can exist in two states at once--alive and dead, black and white--until it's observed or measured in some way, at which point it instantly takes on one quality or the other. You have to accept that two particles at opposite ends of the universe can be entangled in such a way that anything you do to one instantly affects the other. And you have to accept that the strictest, no-exceptions rule in all of physics--that nothing can move faster than the speed of light--may have some exceptions after all. Einstein hated the quantum sandbox, especially the part about entanglement. It's not at all hard to believe that two particles separated by great distances can indeed influence one another via some field or wave, but that information can travel no faster than light speed. If the particles are one billion light years apart, it should take one billion years for something you do to one to have an impact on the other. The idea that that could happen with no time lag at all was something Einsten dismissed as "spooky action at a distance"--and he wanted no part of it. 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. And with that, the entire field of quantum physics gets a big boost. The principle that was supposed to make quantum entanglement impossible is known as local-realism, which conforms to Einsteinian physics by establishing that any signal from any sender to any receiver must obey the light-speed limit (that's the local part) and that outcomes are fixed and determined before an object is observed, not as a result of the observation (that's the realism part). In 1964, physicist John Bell of CERN (The European Organization for Nuclear Research), developed the equations that freed quantum physics from the strictures of local-realism, defining mathematically how particles can be entangled in such a way that they are both part of what is known as a single wave function--instead of each particle being defined by its own wave function. Start by thinking of the particles as identical twins with the same DNA; then think of those same twins sort of sharing the same body--and sort of not. OK, that second part requires a bit of a leap, but never mind, the math adds up. Even Bell, though, didn't pretend that he had nailed the quantum case down completely. His equations still contained two loopholes: the locality loophole (the possibility that the particles are communicating across a small enough space through an efficient enough mechanism that they are indeed not violating light speed); and the detection loophole (that your equipment may be in some way flawed, so that the particles either weren't properly entangled in the first place, or that you're inaccurately analyzing the influence they have on each other). To close those loopholes, a team led by physicists Bas Hensen and Ronald Hanson placed two instruments about 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mi.) apart in labs at opposite ends of the Delft campus. Each lab contained an instrument with a diamond trap designed to hold an electron fast, so that it could be hit with microwave and laser bursts. Those jolts of energy caused both electrons in both labs to emit photons that traveled down optical fibers to a third instrument in a lab equidistant between them. The convergence of those photons caused the entanglement of the two electrons that had produced them. Once that quantum union had taken place, the rest of the entanglement process played out--with observations or measurements of the spin rate of one electron instantly affecting the other one. And in this case instantly means exactly what it is supposed to mean--which is even faster than it would have taken light to travel the 1.3 km distance. What's more, the experiment didn't work just once. Henson and Hanson ran 245 trials across 220 hours of testing sessions over 18 days, yielding results that were consistent and reliable enough to beat the statistical distance opened by Bell's two loopholes--effectively closing them both. "Our experiment realizes the first Bell test that simultaneously addresses both the locality loophole and the detection loophole," the researchers wrote. "Being free of the experimental loopholes, the set-up tests local-realist theories without introducing extra assumptions." In other words, on this score Einstein was wrong and Bell was even righter than he believed. None of this means that any of the theories Einstein did develop about classical physics were in error, anymore than it would mean that the findings of the world's greatest bacteriologist were incorrect because they didn't include anything about viruses--especially if the bacterial work was done before medical science knew viruses exist at all. Physics could never have gotten to the quantum without working through the classical first. And while Einstein picked the right word when he called quantum entanglement spooky, the Delft study now shows that it's very real too. 8**************************************************************************************************** Harvard creates a material that lets light go 'infinitely fast' Andrew Tarantola October 22nd 2015 at 5:24pm Researchers at Harvard University announced recently that they had successfully developed a means of manipulating light at the nanoscale, which could lead to photonic-based (rather than electronic) telecommunications. Think, ubiquitous fiber optics. The team reportedly developed an on-chip metamaterial made from silicon pillars embedded in polymer and wrapped in gold film that exhibits a refractive index of zero. In English, that means that the phase of light passing through this material can travel infinitely fast without violating the known laws of physics. See, the light passing through this metamaterial is still moving at 299,792,458 m/s and is still the fastest thing in the universe. However, light's speed can also be measured by its "phase velocity," the speed at which light's wavelength crests are moving. Basically phase velocity measures how much a wavelength of light is condensed or elongated as it travels through a material. If you shine a light at water, for example, light gets "squished" slightly because the liquid environment is more dense than atmosphere. Conversely, if you shine a light from the bottom of a swimming pool, the wavelength elongates once it hits the surface. As such, it has a refraction index of 1.3. Now when you have a material like this with a refractive index of 0, things get weird. As light passes through it, the crests and troughs stretch infinitely to create a flat line where oscillations occur as a factor of time, not space. Flattening the wavelength allows the light to be easily manipulated without losing energy. The industrial potential -- from telecommunications to quantum computing -- is nearly limitless. "In quantum optics, the lack of phase advance would allow quantum emitters in a zero-index cavity or waveguide to emit photons which are always in phase with one another," said Philip Munoz, a graduate student in the Mazur lab and co-author on the paper. "It could also improve entanglement between quantum bits, as incoming waves of light are effectively spread out and infinitely long, enabling even distant particles to be entangled." There's no word yet, however, as to when this revolutionary technology will make it out of the lab.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-28 07:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5d7bfa0-dac3-4b8a-8c26-1f6416e75f7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371016 |
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 4:36:21 AM UTC-8, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > Group: > Here is how relativity is going down the drain step by step. > > SCIENCE PHYSICS > What Einstein Got Wrong About the Speed of Light > Jeffrey Kluger 22 Oct 2015-10-23 > > A new study confirms a theory that the great man of physics never much liked > If you want to play in the quantum sandbox, you have to accept some bizarre rules. You have to accept that a single thing can exist in two states at once--alive and dead, black and white--until it's observed or measured in some way, at which point it instantly takes on one quality or the other. You have to accept that two particles at opposite ends of the universe can be entangled in such a way that anything you do to one instantly affects the other. And you have to accept that the strictest, no-exceptions rule in all of physics--that nothing can move faster than the speed of light--may have some exceptions after all. > Einstein hated the quantum sandbox, especially the part about entanglement. It's not at all hard to believe that two particles separated by great distances can indeed influence one another via some field or wave, but that information can travel no faster than light speed. If the particles are one billion light years apart, it should take one billion years for something you do to one to have an impact on the other. The idea that that could happen with no time lag at all was something Einsten dismissed as "spooky action at a distance"--and he wanted no part of it. > 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. And with that, the entire field of quantum physics gets a big boost. > The principle that was supposed to make quantum entanglement impossible is known as local-realism, which conforms to Einsteinian physics by establishing that any signal from any sender to any receiver must obey the light-speed limit (that's the local part) and that outcomes are fixed and determined before an object is observed, not as a result of the observation (that's the realism part). > In 1964, physicist John Bell of CERN (The European Organization for Nuclear Research), developed the equations that freed quantum physics from the strictures of local-realism, defining mathematically how particles can be entangled in such a way that they are both part of what is known as a single wave function--instead of each particle being defined by its own wave function. Start by thinking of the particles as identical twins with the same DNA; then think of those same twins sort of sharing the same body--and sort of not. OK, that second part requires a bit of a leap, but never mind, the math adds up. > Even Bell, though, didn't pretend that he had nailed the quantum case down completely. His equations still contained two loopholes: the locality loophole (the possibility that the particles are communicating across a small enough space through an efficient enough mechanism that they are indeed not violating light speed); and the detection loophole (that your equipment may be in some way flawed, so that the particles either weren't properly entangled in the first place, or that you're inaccurately analyzing the influence they have on each other). > To close those loopholes, a team led by physicists Bas Hensen and Ronald Hanson placed two instruments about 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mi.) apart in labs at opposite ends of the Delft campus. Each lab contained an instrument with a diamond trap designed to hold an electron fast, so that it could be hit with microwave and laser bursts. Those jolts of energy caused both electrons in both labs to emit photons that traveled down optical fibers to a third instrument in a lab equidistant between them. The convergence of those photons caused the entanglement of the two electrons that had produced them. > Once that quantum union had taken place, the rest of the entanglement process played out--with observations or measurements of the spin rate of one electron instantly affecting the other one. And in this case instantly means exactly what it is supposed to mean--which is even faster than it would have taken light to travel the 1.3 km distance. > What's more, the experiment didn't work just once. Henson and Hanson ran 245 trials across 220 hours of testing sessions over 18 days, yielding results that were consistent and reliable enough to beat the statistical distance opened by Bell's two loopholes--effectively closing them both. > "Our experiment realizes the first Bell test that simultaneously addresses both the locality loophole and the detection loophole," the researchers wrote. "Being free of the experimental loopholes, the set-up tests local-realist theories without introducing extra assumptions." In other words, on this score Einstein was wrong and Bell was even righter than he believed. > None of this means that any of the theories Einstein did develop about classical physics were in error, anymore than it would mean that the findings of the world's greatest bacteriologist were incorrect because they didn't include anything about viruses--especially if the bacterial work was done before medical science knew viruses exist at all. Physics could never have gotten to the quantum without working through the classical first. And while Einstein picked the right word when he called quantum entanglement spooky, the Delft study now shows that it's very real too. > > 8**************************************************************************************************** > > Harvard creates a material that lets light go 'infinitely fast' > Andrew Tarantola October 22nd 2015 at 5:24pm > > Researchers at Harvard University announced recently that they had successfully developed a means of manipulating light at the nanoscale, which could lead to photonic-based (rather than electronic) telecommunications. Think, ubiquitous fiber optics. The team reportedly developed an on-chip metamaterial made from silicon pillars embedded in polymer and wrapped in gold film that exhibits a refractive index of zero. In English, that means that the phase of light passing through this material can travel infinitely fast without violating the known laws of physics. > See, the light passing through this metamaterial is still moving at 299,792,458 m/s and is still the fastest thing in the universe. However, light's speed can also be measured by its "phase velocity," the speed at which light's wavelength crests are moving. Basically phase velocity measures how much a wavelength of light is condensed or elongated as it travels through a material. If you shine a light at water, for example, light gets "squished" slightly because the liquid environment is more dense than atmosphere. Conversely, if you shine a light from the bottom of a swimming pool, the wavelength elongates once it hits the surface. As such, it has a refraction index of 1.3. > Now when you have a material like this with a refractive index of 0, things get weird. As light passes through it, the crests and troughs stretch infinitely to create a flat line where oscillations occur as a factor of time, not space. Flattening the wavelength allows the light to be easily manipulated without losing energy. The industrial potential -- from telecommunications to quantum computing -- is nearly limitless. > "In quantum optics, the lack of phase advance would allow quantum emitters in a zero-index cavity or waveguide to emit photons which are always in phase with one another," said Philip Munoz, a graduate student in the Mazur lab and co-author on the paper. "It could also improve entanglement between quantum bits, as incoming waves of light are effectively spread out and infinitely long, enabling even distant particles to be entangled." There's no word yet, however, as to when this revolutionary technology will make it out of the lab. That would seem to be "near-zero" the refractive index, not "absolute zero". Combining electronic, thermionic, and photonic pathways on chip, with junctions, is a great idea for all kinds of digital and power computing and for the reversible and low power computing. Each of these is capped at c (in superconducting material, at c).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-28 07:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d37eab9-6141-48d2-8a3f-c664ec62ea68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371016 |
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 5:36:21 AM UTC-7, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > > Group: > Here is how relativity is going down the drain step by step. > > SCIENCE PHYSICS > What Einstein Got Wrong About the Speed of Light > Jeffrey Kluger 22 Oct 2015-10-23 > > Harvard creates a material that lets light go 'infinitely fast' > Andrew Tarantola October 22nd 2015 at 5:24pm Sorry, but this quote from the paper sticks a thorn in your assertion: "the light passing through this metamaterial is still moving at 299,792,458 m/s and is still the fastest thing in the universe." And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 05:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9b9855ad-c660-4c45-a0cb-5fb25cb5063d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371026 |
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:41:53 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 5:36:21 AM UTC-7, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > > > > Group: > > Here is how relativity is going down the drain step by step. > > > > SCIENCE PHYSICS > > What Einstein Got Wrong About the Speed of Light > > Jeffrey Kluger 22 Oct 2015-10-23 > > > > Harvard creates a material that lets light go 'infinitely fast' > > Andrew Tarantola October 22nd 2015 at 5:24pm > > Sorry, but this quote from the paper sticks a thorn in your assertion: > > "the light passing through this metamaterial is still moving at > 299,792,458 m/s and is still the fastest thing in the universe." > > And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. It starts with speed not faster than light. In the case of entanglement it changes to information not faster than light. The fact that Alice and Bob must compare notes for correlation to decode the information is avoiding the point of faster than light. Not being able to decode the information until later is a weak argument. A better argument is to say entanglement assumes no length contraction and is therefore outside the theory of relativity. A proof of entanglement is a balancing act of non classical vs classical probabilities. A photon from our FoR is length contracted to 2 possible polarization of only x and y. However from the photon FoR , not length contracted , it has 3 possible polarizations of x y and z. The event to test photon polarization happens in our FoR. An event can not happen in two FoR only one therefore the photon was in our FoR when the test for polarization was done. If the photon is in our FoR then it must be given full status of 3 dimensions , not length contracted , therefore the possibility of 3 polarization. This will change non classical probabilities to classical probabilities. Entanglement fails a Bell test therefore there is no proof that light or information is moving faster than light. This also answers the question why we do not have a quantum computer. Lots of talk and 20 years and still waiting but still no quantum computer? It could be that entanglement was just a unfortunate mistake leading us back to the great one " god does not play dice".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 05:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn5tkhs.an.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371026 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: ----snip---- > And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. Oh? If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate in binary. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 22:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dc842tF33lmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371287 |
On 2/12/2015 10:13 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > ----snip---- > >> And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. > > Oh? > > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state > in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. > > IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate > in binary. > > Ned > You cannot detect a change in the state in the remote object, even if one occurs, because you have no way of knowing what state it was in originally. The "No Communication Theorem" is a mathematical proof that the entangled state, as formulated in quantum mechanics, cannot be used for FTL communication. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 09:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn63cdl.k0n.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371291 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. > > > > Oh? > > > > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state > > in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. > > > > IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate > > in binary. > > You cannot detect a change in the state in the remote object, even if > one occurs, because you have no way of knowing what state it was in > originally. You? What is this "you"? For communication there are *two* parties: one local, one remote. To which of those "You"s do you refer? > The "No Communication Theorem" is a mathematical proof that the > entangled state, as formulated in quantum mechanics, cannot be > used for FTL communication. Yair, right. Mathematical. The local entity cannot detect the remote change of state. Is that it? Wot a wank!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 14:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcf2s2Fq82eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371411 |
On 5/12/2015 2:31 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>> ----snip---- >>> >>>> And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. >>> >>> Oh? >>> >>> If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state >>> in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. >>> >>> IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate >>> in binary. >> >> You cannot detect a change in the state in the remote object, even if >> one occurs, because you have no way of knowing what state it was in >> originally. > > You? What is this "you"? It's the person near the remote object who is seeking to recognise a change of state. > > For communication there are *two* parties: one local, one remote. > > To which of those "You"s do you refer? > >> The "No Communication Theorem" is a mathematical proof that the >> entangled state, as formulated in quantum mechanics, cannot be >> used for FTL communication. > > Yair, right. Mathematical. The local entity cannot detect the remote > change of state. Is that it? That's the effect of the math, yes. And lest you seek to minimise the significance of the math, note that QM is a mathematical theory, and consequently theorems about it are irrefutable statements about it. Now, it may be that the real world doesn't obey QM exactly, in which case the theorem won't necessarily apply to the real world. But in that case, in the absence of an alternative theory that does apply to the real world, what can or cannot be done regards FTL is nothing more than idle speculation. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 09:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn68lrq.vrt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371445 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. > > > > > > > > Oh? > > > > > > > > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state > > > > in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. > > > > > > > > IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate > > > > in binary. > > > > > > You cannot detect a change in the state in the remote object, even if > > > one occurs, because you have no way of knowing what state it was in > > > originally. > > > > You? What is this "you"? > > It's the person near the remote object who is seeking to recognise a > change of state. Nonsense. If there's a change of state in the remote object and (as I said above) IF QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT IS NOT A MEANINGLESS TERM, the remote entity can detect it. > > For communication there are *two* parties: one local, one remote. > > > > To which of those "You"s do you refer? > > > > > The "No Communication Theorem" is a mathematical proof that the > > > entangled state, as formulated in quantum mechanics, cannot be > > > used for FTL communication. > > > > Yair, right. Mathematical. The local entity cannot detect the remote > > change of state. Is that it? > > That's the effect of the math, yes. It's pure idiocy. Communication requires that the REMOTE entity detect the remote change of state. > And lest you seek to minimise the > significance of the math, note that QM is a mathematical theory, and > consequently theorems about it are irrefutable statements about it. > > Now, it may be that the real world doesn't obey QM exactly, in which > case the theorem won't necessarily apply to the real world. By Geotge! She's got it! Actually, you can omit the word "necessarily": the fact is, QM isn't a physical theory at all (saying "quantum object" doesn't cut it as a physical postulate). ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 10:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dck0c9F33ggU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371488 |
On 7/12/2015 2:42 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ----snip---- >>>>> >>>>>> And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. >>>>> >>>>> Oh? >>>>> >>>>> If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state >>>>> in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. >>>>> >>>>> IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate >>>>> in binary. >>>> >>>> You cannot detect a change in the state in the remote object, even if >>>> one occurs, because you have no way of knowing what state it was in >>>> originally. >>> >>> You? What is this "you"? >> >> It's the person near the remote object who is seeking to recognise a >> change of state. > > Nonsense. If there's a change of state in the remote object and (as > I said above) IF QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT IS NOT A MEANINGLESS TERM, the > remote entity can detect it. > >>> For communication there are *two* parties: one local, one remote. >>> >>> To which of those "You"s do you refer? >>> >>>> The "No Communication Theorem" is a mathematical proof that the >>>> entangled state, as formulated in quantum mechanics, cannot be >>>> used for FTL communication. >>> >>> Yair, right. Mathematical. The local entity cannot detect the remote >>> change of state. Is that it? >> >> That's the effect of the math, yes. > > It's pure idiocy. Communication requires that the REMOTE entity detect > the remote change of state. > >> And lest you seek to minimise the >> significance of the math, note that QM is a mathematical theory, and >> consequently theorems about it are irrefutable statements about it. >> >> Now, it may be that the real world doesn't obey QM exactly, in which >> case the theorem won't necessarily apply to the real world. > > By Geotge! She's got it! > > Actually, you can omit the word "necessarily": the fact is, QM isn't > a physical theory at all (saying "quantum object" doesn't cut it as > a physical postulate). The essential point that you've missed here is that if the real world doesn't obey QM exactly, then you have no theory that describes the real world, and consequently have no basis on which to hypothesise that FTL is possible. In summary, a) if QM is correct, then entanglement cannot be used for FTL communication, by the no-communication theorem, and b) if QM is not correct, you have no theoretical basis for thinking that FTL communication is possible. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 11:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn736kf.s7r.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371516 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: ----snip---- > > > Now, it may be that the real world doesn't obey QM exactly, in which > > > case the theorem won't necessarily apply to the real world. > > > > By George! She's got it! > > > > Actually, you can omit the word "necessarily": the fact is, QM isn't > > a physical theory at all (saying "quantum object" doesn't cut it as > > a physical postulate). > > The essential point that you've missed here Oh, wot a shame! She didn't get it. > is that if the real world > doesn't obey QM exactly, then you have no theory that describes the real > world, Wrong. I see you pretenders to the title "scientist" need a refresher. See the article "Particles and Theory".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 03:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d1296547-48d1-48bc-8229-d68ad2e8edab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371287 |
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:13:06 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > ----snip---- > > > And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. > > Oh? > > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state > in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. > > IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate > in binary. > > Ned So HOW are you going to "change" the state of the local object in a meaningful (deterministic) way without disrupting the entanglement? If you can do that, I'll freely admit, nay - EMBRACE, FTL communication. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 09:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn63cle.k0n.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371294 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. > > > > Oh? > > > > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state > > in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. > > > > IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate > > in binary. > > So HOW are you going to "change" the state of the local object in a > meaningful (deterministic) way without disrupting the entanglement? > If you can do that, I'll freely admit, nay - EMBRACE, FTL communication. Why should *I* be burdened with changing its state? I'm not one of the nitwits treating "quantum entanglement" as meaningful. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 09:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6cf8eefc-fb53-46b9-8c76-b4c9e239e304@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371412 |
On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 8:35:28 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > So HOW are you going to "change" the state of the local object in a > > meaningful (deterministic) way without disrupting the entanglement? > > If you can do that, I'll freely admit, nay - EMBRACE, FTL communication. > > Why should *I* be burdened with changing its state? > > I'm not one of the nitwits treating "quantum entanglement" as meaningful. > > Ned But you STILL are a nitwit because you are too lazy to do the work to figure it all out, preferring to yammer about something you don't understand. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 10:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn68n33.vrt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371426 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > So HOW are you going to "change" the state of the local object in a > > > meaningful (deterministic) way without disrupting the entanglement? > > > If you can do that, I'll freely admit, nay - EMBRACE, FTL communication. > > > > Why should *I* be burdened with changing its state? > > > > I'm not one of the nitwits treating "quantum entanglement" as meaningful. > > But you STILL are a nitwit I must admit to feeling rather foolish over trying to get such as you to think. > because you are too lazy Oh, dear. You really are a prejudicial retard, aren't you? > to do the work to figure it all out, You really don't get it, do you? There's no point in "figuring out" incoherent babble. > preferring to yammer about something you don't understand. Tch. You misspelt "reject", moron. Twice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 14:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dcf33bFq82eU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371412 |
On 5/12/2015 2:35 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Gary Harnagel wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> >>> ----snip---- >>> >>>> And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. >>> >>> Oh? >>> >>> If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state >>> in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. >>> >>> IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate >>> in binary. >> >> So HOW are you going to "change" the state of the local object in a >> meaningful (deterministic) way without disrupting the entanglement? >> If you can do that, I'll freely admit, nay - EMBRACE, FTL communication. > > Why should *I* be burdened with changing its state? > > I'm not one of the nitwits treating "quantum entanglement" as meaningful. > > Ned > That's a bizarre response, since you're the one positing that FTL is possible using entanglement. Unless your original posting was an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum proof that entanglement is meaningless. (Which proof doesn't work, by the way). Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 10:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn68n9h.vrt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371446 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > And quantum entanglement does NOT mean that you can communicate FTL. > > > > > > > > Oh? > > > > > > > > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state > > > > in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. > > > > > > > > IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate > > > > in binary. > > > > > > So HOW are you going to "change" the state of the local object in a > > > meaningful (deterministic) way without disrupting the entanglement? > > > If you can do that, I'll freely admit, nay - EMBRACE, FTL communication. > > > > Why should *I* be burdened with changing its state? > > > > I'm not one of the nitwits treating "quantum entanglement" as meaningful. > > That's a bizarre response, Noy to anyone with more than half a brain. > since you're the one positing that FTL is > possible using entanglement. Wrong. Read it again. This time with your eyes open. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 10:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <LMGdnbzyfLSZgsLLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371287 |
On 12/2/15 12/2/15 - 5:13 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state > in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. > IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate > in binary. Not true. In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with random but entangled spins are separated to locations A and B. So a measurement at either place immediately determines the measurement results for both particles of the pair. So consider the spin measurements at A: a series of measurements randomly yielding "up" or "down" with equal probability. Consider the similar measurements at B: a series of measurements randomly yielding "up" or "down" with equal probability. Assume A always performs the measurement first: How can B "extract information supposedly sent from A" out of this random series of results? Yes, AFTER THE FACT you can transfer the results to a common location and discover that for any pair that A measured "up" B measured "down", and vice-versa. But this is OBVIOUSLY not FTL. Note that A cannot influence the result of her measurement. Suppose she wants to sent the message "1" to B -- how could she possibly "encode" that information in the measurements? Repeat the mantra: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Quantum entanglement is correlation. Note there are rather strong theorems about the impossibility of using such entanglement to send information, and about the impossibility of "cloning" a quantum state. (I am not expert here.) See my recent post in this thread for a more detailed discussion. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3najn$l3p$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371314 |
суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 10:40:36 -0600 пользователь Tom Roberts написал: > On 12/2/15 12/2/15 - 5:13 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >> If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state >> in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote >> object. IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to >> communicate in binary. Here is exactly where even the mainstream QM relativists promoters are getting lost deep in the forest. There are no "distinct states". But a single, ONLY ONE, complementary state. Not sure you are able to sense the difference: 2 distinct state vs 1 complementary state. You may safely delete the "complementary", since it is indeed A SINGLE STATE. > Not true. > > In the usual EPR-type experiment, pairs of particles with random but > entangled spins are separated to locations A and B. So a measurement at > either place immediately determines the measurement results for both > particles of the pair. Well, I would even dare to affirm that there are no "pairs", but a SINGLE entangled particle. LOL. Not sure you too can sense the difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 09:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn63cu4.k0n.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #371314 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > If "quantum entanglement" is not a meaningless term, a change of state > > in the local object has to be instantly detectable in the remote object. > > IOW, you have two distinct states, and that allows you to communicate > > in binary. > > Not true. Wrong. Read the conditional again. Think. ----babble snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web