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 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 09:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1001131a-900c-4a34-a27f-41a2b1c2f645@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372111 |
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 7:42:17 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/13/15 12/13/15 - 11:02 PM, John Heath wrote: > > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 7:58:54 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [...] > > > > You are almost there. > > That's a laugh, coming from you, who doesn't have a clue where "there" is > (assuming it has something to do with understanding entangled states in QM). > > > > [...] Therein is > > the means for Alice to send a message to Bob when they get together to > > compare notes later. > > Therein is one aspect of your confusions and errors -- you obviously do not know > what a message is. > > THINK ABOUT IT: if Bob "receives" this "message" when he and Alice "get together > to compare notes", why doesn't Alice just tell him the message??? > > In any case, it simply is not possible to send a message BETWEEN DETECTION > EVENTS (which is what this thread has been about until your miscue here). > > > > For my 2 cents > > Your "2 cents" doesn't matter. My "2 cents" doesn't matter. Bell's and > Einstein's "2 cents" don't matter. What matters is EXPERIMENTS, and the models > we have constructed to describe them. > > > >[... more nonsense] > > > Tom Roberts I little truth in human behavioral psychology. If it feels good to say something it is more likely wrong. Feels good is the heads up. This comes from the irrational ID not the rational neocortex. A failing of the human mind. Something to consider in future posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-25 19:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <de4du0F7nl2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372694 |
On 25/12/2015 4:32 AM, John Heath wrote: > > I little truth in human behavioral psychology. If it feels good to > say something it is more likely wrong. Cite? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 03:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9e91c14f-a270-491a-9e39-0b8abd489d98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372732 |
On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:43:47 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 25/12/2015 4:32 AM, John Heath wrote: > > > > > I little truth in human behavioral psychology. If it feels good to > > say something it is more likely wrong. > > Cite? > > Sylvia. Sorry for the delay. I did not notice your question. Cite examples of a statement that feels good to say but is more likely to be wrong and irrational in its nature. You are stopped by a policeman for speeding. If you take this opportunity to express your real thoughts on what you think of Mr policemen you could end up this two tickets instead of just one. Rational behavior in these circumstances is to keep what feels good to say to yourself. This will lead to an unpleasant feeling called attitude discrepant behavior that will last for a few hours. However if you grin and bare it you can look in the mirror and say that you have overcome your innate irrational human side with will power to stick with rational behavior in life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 22:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfpflaFko60U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #373912 |
On 14/01/2016 10:21 PM, John Heath wrote: > On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:43:47 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 25/12/2015 4:32 AM, John Heath wrote: >> >>> >>> I little truth in human behavioral psychology. If it feels good >>> to say something it is more likely wrong. >> >> Cite? >> >> Sylvia. > > Sorry for the delay. I did not notice your question. Cite examples of > a statement that feels good to say but is more likely to be wrong and > irrational in its nature. > > You are stopped by a policeman for speeding. If you take this > opportunity to express your real thoughts on what you think of Mr > policemen you could end up this two tickets instead of just one. > Rational behavior in these circumstances is to keep what feels good > to say to yourself. This will lead to an unpleasant feeling called > attitude discrepant behavior that will last for a few hours. However > if you grin and bare it you can look in the mirror and say that you > have overcome your innate irrational human side with will power to > stick with rational behavior in life. > That is not a cite. That is a thought experiment. Your claim was not that it is wrong in at least one situation, but that it is more likely to be wrong. Such a result, if it's correct, could only be determined by considerable research, and I would expect a paper describing it to have been published in a reputable journal. So, as I said - cite? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 04:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f2a5117-f3ea-4569-9ba5-6984d85a17b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373913 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:38:21 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 14/01/2016 10:21 PM, John Heath wrote: > > On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:43:47 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 25/12/2015 4:32 AM, John Heath wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I little truth in human behavioral psychology. If it feels good > >>> to say something it is more likely wrong. > >> > >> Cite? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Sorry for the delay. I did not notice your question. Cite examples of > > a statement that feels good to say but is more likely to be wrong and > > irrational in its nature. > > > > You are stopped by a policeman for speeding. If you take this > > opportunity to express your real thoughts on what you think of Mr > > policemen you could end up this two tickets instead of just one. > > Rational behavior in these circumstances is to keep what feels good > > to say to yourself. This will lead to an unpleasant feeling called > > attitude discrepant behavior that will last for a few hours. However > > if you grin and bare it you can look in the mirror and say that you > > have overcome your innate irrational human side with will power to > > stick with rational behavior in life. > > > > That is not a cite. That is a thought experiment. > > Your claim was not that it is wrong in at least one situation, but that > it is more likely to be wrong. Such a result, if it's correct, could > only be determined by considerable research, and I would expect a paper > describing it to have been published in a reputable journal. So, as I > said - cite? > > Sylvia. If you google attitude discrepant behavior you can see that it is published in reputable journals and is taught in college in psychology 101. Cognitive labeling of emotions is another google that gets at the heart of irrational behavior. I can create conditions that will consistently cause you to make an irrational decision. It will supersize you that I could do this when looking back on it. You can do this to others to see first hand how irrational we can be in life. If you like I can on and on about this for pages and how it relates to physics that has the same thumb print of irrational conclusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 11:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfqrt7F1hq4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #373917 |
On 14/01/2016 11:08 PM, John Heath wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:38:21 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 14/01/2016 10:21 PM, John Heath wrote: >>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:43:47 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 25/12/2015 4:32 AM, John Heath wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I little truth in human behavioral psychology. If it feels >>>>> good to say something it is more likely wrong. >>>> >>>> Cite? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Sorry for the delay. I did not notice your question. Cite >>> examples of a statement that feels good to say but is more likely >>> to be wrong and irrational in its nature. >>> >>> You are stopped by a policeman for speeding. If you take this >>> opportunity to express your real thoughts on what you think of >>> Mr policemen you could end up this two tickets instead of just >>> one. Rational behavior in these circumstances is to keep what >>> feels good to say to yourself. This will lead to an unpleasant >>> feeling called attitude discrepant behavior that will last for a >>> few hours. However if you grin and bare it you can look in the >>> mirror and say that you have overcome your innate irrational >>> human side with will power to stick with rational behavior in >>> life. >>> >> >> That is not a cite. That is a thought experiment. >> >> Your claim was not that it is wrong in at least one situation, but >> that it is more likely to be wrong. Such a result, if it's correct, >> could only be determined by considerable research, and I would >> expect a paper describing it to have been published in a reputable >> journal. So, as I said - cite? >> >> Sylvia. > > If you google attitude discrepant behavior you can see that it is > published in reputable journals and is taught in college in > psychology 101. Cognitive labeling of emotions is another google that > gets at the heart of irrational behavior. I can create conditions > that will consistently cause you to make an irrational decision. It > will supersize you that I could do this when looking back on it. You > can do this to others to see first hand how irrational we can be in > life. If you like I can on and on about this for pages and how it > relates to physics that has the same thumb print of irrational > conclusions. > Still not a cite. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 12:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <FZidna69TI4S_PHLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371889 |
On 12/12/15 12/12/15 - 4:48 AM, John Heath wrote: > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 10:00:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> FTL doesn't work anyway. Which direction is the information travelling in? > > The first one to collapse the entangled states sets the direction of information. You REALLY need to learn the basics. For two measurements with spacelike separation, THERE IS NO "FIRST ONE" -- the measurements can occur in either temporal order, depending on who is looking (and which inertial frame they are at rest in). You are also incorrect about "collapse", and using the plural "states". But to understand why you'll have to read what I have already written. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 17:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d76ca3ee-a6f7-40ea-a15a-4928763ffdfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371906 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 12/12/15 12/12/15 - 4:48 AM, John Heath wrote: > > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 10:00:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> FTL doesn't work anyway. Which direction is the information travelling in? > > > > The first one to collapse the entangled states sets the direction of information. > > You REALLY need to learn the basics. For two measurements with spacelike > separation, THERE IS NO "FIRST ONE" -- the measurements can occur in either > temporal order, depending on who is looking (and which inertial frame they are > at rest in). > > You are also incorrect about "collapse", and using the plural "states". But to > understand why you'll have to read what I have already written. > > > Tom Roberts You need to keep writing, keep describing what you are talking about, as simply as possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 13:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dd42knF3gqcU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371920 |
On 13/12/2015 12:15 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 12/12/15 12/12/15 - 4:48 AM, John Heath wrote: >>> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 10:00:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> FTL doesn't work anyway. Which direction is the information travelling in? >>> >>> The first one to collapse the entangled states sets the direction of information. >> >> You REALLY need to learn the basics. For two measurements with spacelike >> separation, THERE IS NO "FIRST ONE" -- the measurements can occur in either >> temporal order, depending on who is looking (and which inertial frame they are >> at rest in). >> >> You are also incorrect about "collapse", and using the plural "states". But to >> understand why you'll have to read what I have already written. >> >> >> Tom Roberts > > You need to keep writing, keep describing what you are talking about, as simply as possible. > There's a limit to how simple this stuff can be made if people are not willing to put the effort into understanding it. Anyone feeling competent to make statements in the context of relativity should have done the necessary study. No one has to study relativity, of course, but if they haven't, they should accept that they're ignorant of its consequences, and refrain from making statements about them. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 13:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0df04b54-ebcb-4eb6-b4f8-496531598aae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371793 |
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:50:11 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/10/15 12/10/15 6:41 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > I was asking Tom about his saying that "after measuring one particle,
> > there's nothing to "collapse" until the other spin is measured also".
> >
> > This seems to run against the usual (and perhaps old-fashioned but anyway)
> > interpretation of the state vector and the projection postulate.
>
> No it doesn't. You keep trying to consider each particle separately -- that is
> WRONG, because the preparation was of a PAIR OF PARTICLES. There is no
> "wavefunction for each particle", there is ONLY a wavefunction OF THE PAIR.
Yes. But my experiment on the PAIR consists of examining the spin of
particle 1 in the z-direction. This corresponds to the observable J_z x Id
(the z-component of the angular momentum operator tensored with the identity).
Let's say, the result is "1-up". Then according to the standard (aka.
"literal") interpretation of QM, the state:
1/sqrt(2) * ( |1-up>|2-down> - |1-down>|2-up> )
...orthogonally projects to:
1/sqrt(2) * |1-up>|2-down>
[since |1-up>|2-up> and |1-up>|2-down> is an orthonormal basis of the
"1-up" eigenspace of the tensor product of the two state spaces, and
<2-down|<1-up|1-up>|2-up> = 0, etc. etc.]
...which is physically the same as the normalised |1-up>|2-down>, and we are
now free to perform _another_ experiment called "examine the spin of
particle 2".
This is the standard conclusion from the projection postulate, all classic
textbooks have it. What's wrong with it?
> In all Bohr's writings, and all the QM classes I took, the wavefunction
> "collapses" AFTER A MEASUREMENT OF THE SYSTEM, because the measurement
> determines that it is in the eigenstate corresponding to the eigenvalue that was
> measured.
What if my measurement of the system consists by definition of checking the
observable J_z x Id, i.e. I observe the system by checking the spin of
particle 1?
> That is what "collapse of the wavefunction" means, and it says NOTHING
> AT ALL about measuring part of a system, or any sort of "partial collapse" which
> you seem to be advocating.
Isn't the above a standard use of the projection postulate? This discussion
reminds me a bit of the debates (professional) surrounding Akharonov's
paper on the pigeonholing principle!
[snip]
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 23:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4fn1l$ref$6@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371838 |
Il giorno mercoledì Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:57:06 -0800, JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> ha scritto: > ...which is physically the same as the normalised |1-up>|2-down>, and we > are now free to perform _another_ experiment called "examine the spin of > particle 2". I don't believe you can do that, since same QM says that the particle #2 is ALREADY MEASURED. lol. (this is how The Computer is answering). Once you measure a one, the other is IMPLICITLY already measured.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 12:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <huadneCBep19KPDLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371838 |
On 12/11/15 12/11/15 - 3:57 PM, JanPB wrote: > [... correct math] > This is the standard conclusion from the projection postulate, all classic > textbooks have it. What's wrong with it? There is nothing wrong with it. The MATH is OK, but interpretations expressed earlier are not. It all boils down to: <0|1-up>|2-f> = <1-up|<2-down|1-up>|2-f> = <2-down|2-f> for any final state f of particle 2 (i.e. any axis, any measurement result). That is: preparation of the two particles in a spin 0 state and then measuring particle 1 to be spin-up is just a complicated way of preparing particle 2 in a spin-down state. NOTE: those equalities are between complex numbers, not between state vectors. The Hilbert spaces for the three expressions are DIFFERENT -- that is, the "system" takes on different meanings. My basic point is that non-rel QM is about states of the "system", and one must be careful to keep in mind what one means by "system" -- changing "system" in mid-calculation is invalid, and is at base the cause of the confusions here. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 23:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4fm9l$ref$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371793 |
Il giorno mercoledì Thu, 10 Dec 2015 22:50:08 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> ha scritto: >> z-direction previously. IOW, the second particle has no way of knowing >> in advance what we are going to do with the first particle: the key >> question being: what if I suddenly decide to measure the first particle >> in the x-direction? LOL > Part that is IRRELEVANT, and the rest is WRONG. Because the initial > state of the system is |0>. You can decide however you like to measure > the two particles, you ALWAYS compute the probability of the result in > final state f as |<0|f>|^2, regardless of what f is. > > Yes, "the second particle has no way of knowing in advance what we are > going to do with the first particle" -- BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because > we compute <0|f>, in which |f> represents the results of the > measurements WHICH WERE MADE [#] (regardless of the time sequence in > which they were made). <0|f> is independent of time (and space).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 15:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <894ad414-221d-41e6-8f4b-a1dbb4315584@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371843 |
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-8, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > Il giorno mercoledì Thu, 10 Dec 2015 22:50:08 -0600, Tom Roberts > ha scritto: > > >> z-direction previously. IOW, the second particle has no way of knowing > >> in advance what we are going to do with the first particle: the key > >> question being: what if I suddenly decide to measure the first particle > >> in the x-direction? > > LOL That's very nice and everything but try to be more careful with attributions next time. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 23:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4fna3$ref$7@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371844 |
Il giorno mercoledì Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:32:08 -0800, JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> ha scritto: > On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 3:29:59 PM UTC-8, Plexippus Kritikos > wrote: >> Il giorno mercoledì Thu, 10 Dec 2015 22:50:08 -0600, Tom Roberts ha >> scritto: >> >> >> z-direction previously. IOW, the second particle has no way of >> >> knowing in advance what we are going to do with the first particle: >> >> the key question being: what if I suddenly decide to measure the >> >> first particle in the x-direction? >> >> LOL > > That's very nice and everything but try to be more careful with > attributions next time. Implicitly included, due to the indentation. The point is that you have trouble understanding that a measurement on one of the two particles makes the other (hypothetical) measurement *obsolete*. (on the other particle)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4fmig$ref$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371793 |
Il giorno mercoledì Thu, 10 Dec 2015 22:50:08 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> ha scritto: > Yes, "the second particle has no way of knowing in advance what we are > going to do with the first particle" -- BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because > we compute <0|f>, in which |f> represents the results of the > measurements WHICH WERE MADE [#] (regardless of the time sequence in > which they were made). <0|f> is independent of time (and space). I believe you have to be wrong here, and misunderstood what the entanglement phenomenon is all about. A measurement on one particle automatically *terminate* the other as well. This is how I understand that "entanglement". Why? Because the measurement usually is destructive. Hence you can't have the entanglement of a single particle. Would be nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 20:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <KYWdnS1BtZ48GfbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371845 |
On 12/11/15 12/11/15 5:34 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > Il giorno mercoledì Thu, 10 Dec 2015 22:50:08 -0600, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> ha scritto: >> Yes, "the second particle has no way of knowing in advance what we are >> going to do with the first particle" -- BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because >> we compute <0|f>, in which |f> represents the results of the >> measurements WHICH WERE MADE [#] (regardless of the time sequence in >> which they were made). <0|f> is independent of time (and space). > > I believe you have to be wrong here, and misunderstood what the > entanglement phenomenon is all about. No. YOU have misunderstood it. > A measurement on one particle > automatically *terminate* the other as well. Not at all. The other particle still exists, and can still be measured. For some situations, but by no means all of them, measuring one particle tells you what a measurement of the other particle would yield. (For particles with entangled spins, this only happens for measurements along a single axis.) Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "terminate". Not to mention your grammatically incorrect usage. > This is how I understand that > "entanglement". Why? Because the measurement usually is destructive. Some measurements are destructive, most are not. Does my measuring the length of my desk destroy the desk??? More to the point,the usual way of measuring the spin of an electron is to propagate it through a Stern-Gerlach magnet. This is NOT destructive, and successive measurements yield the same answer. > Hence > you can't have the entanglement of a single particle. Would be nonsense. Yes, "entanglement" does not apply to a single particle. But your "hence" is nonsense -- your preceding argument is wrong, and does not establish this in any case. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4hi54$fct$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371860 |
Il giorno mercoledì Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:21:19 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> ha scritto: >> A measurement on one particle automatically *terminate* the other as >> well. > > Not at all. The other particle still exists, and can still be measured. Abs NOT. You indeed misunderstood "entanglement" > For some situations, but by no means all of them, measuring one particle > tells you what a measurement of the other particle would yield. (For > particles with entangled spins, this only happens for measurements along > a single axis.) There is no reason, and there is nothing to measure, once the entanglement is embedded. Are you kidding me, by not even knowing what a *measurement* stands for? In Physics a measurement is a task performed when you want to test or OBSERVE a particular parameter. (ie, there is no reason to measure a point at 5V once you are the one applying that 5V at that point). See the difference? Even if it were true, that you were able to measure that "entangled" particle. I repeat. Why? Since once you performed that measurement on the one of the particle, the entanglement is OVER. LOL. Similar Relativity, there is no reason (and possible) to measure Length Contraction, once you know that it OCCURS. LOL² > Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "terminate". > Not to mention your grammatically incorrect usage. Ok mister perfect, read "terminate(s)". LOL, complying for a missing "s" strongly indicates the protester admitting implicitly being putted aside in a corner. Thanks. >> This is how I understand that "entanglement". Why? Because the >> measurement usually is destructive. > > Some measurements are destructive, most are not. In quantum particle measurements ALL ARE. (destructive) You should know this better than I do. > Does my measuring the length of my desk destroy the desk??? We aint into the non-destructive type of measurement of tables. You divert from the entanglement issue, which indicates you already are not sure. > More to the point,the usual way of masuring the spin of an electron is > to propagate it through a Stern-Gerlach magnet. This is NOT destructive, > and successive measurements yield the same answer. Sure it is destroyed. You probably have been fooled by the destruction- recreation process. I am forced to repeat. You can't measure A (single) quantum particle NON-DESTRUCTIVELY. (logically impossibility). Now I am going to guess here, but I strongly believe that when a particular "entanglement" is tried measured, what is measured is a stochastic group of considered "entangled" particle are measure. (no hardware can control single particles, there is always an uncertainty about the numbers). The ones having the opposite spin are considered "entangles". All the others corresponds to those faulty going through. >> Hence you can't have the entanglement of a single particle. Would be >> nonsense. > > Yes, "entanglement" does not apply to a single particle. But your > "hence" is nonsense -- your preceding argument is wrong, and does not > establish this in any case. Abs NOT, since you unreserved already agreed with it. You must be great.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 00:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cafcf0f4-597f-438f-9123-d309af842e95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371793 |
On December 10, tjrob137 wrote: >> I was asking Tom about his saying that "after measuring one particle, >> there's nothing to "collapse" until the other spin is measured also". >> This seems to run against the usual (and perhaps old-fashioned but anyway) >> interpretation of the state vector and the projection postulate. > > There is no "wavefunction for each particle", there is ONLY a wavefunction OF THE PAIR. > the wave function "collapses" AFTER A MEASUREMENT OF THE SYSTEM. > That is what "collapse of the wavefunction" means, and it says NOTHING > AT ALL about measuring part of a system, or any sort of "partial collapse" which > you seem to be advocating. > When you measure one particle, that has NOT determined the final > state, so the wavefunction of the system cannot "collapse". > > Because the initial state of the system is |0>. You can decide however you > like to measure the two particles, you ALWAYS compute the probability of > the result in final state f as |<0|f>|^2, regardless of what f is. > > Yes, "the second particle has no way of knowing in advance what > we are going to do with the first particle" -- BUT IT DOESN'T > MATTER because we compute <0|f>, in which |f> represents the > results of the measurements WHICH WERE MADE [#] (regardless of > the time sequence in which they were made). <0|f> is independent > of time (and space). Sorry, I agree with Jam, that can't be completely right. There are still 2 observations, and the system will evolve during the interval. Gedanken: Given a prepared pair of spin anti-correlated electrons. Send them off in opposite directions, far away. Halt them somehow, without affecting their spin (is that possible?). Now they occupy the same inertial frame, hence with a common time. Now, in one universe, as seen from their reference frame, A's spin is measured first, but B's is delayed, for a while. In another universe, neither spin is observed. Following your reasoning, the state vectors are identical, in a kind of limbo, waiting for the PAIR of measurements to complete. Which means even after A's spin is measured, an observer would see no difference between the universes. A's action has no observable impact! Preposterous. --- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 00:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0884a2b2-a62c-411b-89ba-1ba86a5db497@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371781 |
On December 10, JanPB wrote: >>>>> I thought his idea of "collapse" was what >>>>> happened when a measurement was made. > > > >> Yes. But a measurement of the system, not just of a part of it. > >>> There is still something going on here because after measuring the >>> spin of the first particle (let's say it's "up"), one can choose >>> NOT to measure the second particle's spin at a _spacelike_ >>> connected event but at a timelike connected one instead. >>> And at this point the second particle's measurement will certainly >>> yield "down". So something must have changed in the wave function >>> after measuring the first particle already or else it wouldn't >>> yield "down" with probability 1. > >> If the experiment is timelike, what is proved, what's being >> tested? > > I was asking Tom about his saying that "after measuring one particle, > there's nothing to "collapse" until the other spin is measured also". > > After measuring the spin of the first particle in the z-direction (say), the > state vector collapses (projects) to one with the spin component of the > second particle necessarily yielding "up" if we decide to measure it > along the z-direction as well, _regardless_ of the separating interval > being timelike or specelike. Yes, but you too commit the error of assuming that the pair of detectors are aligned at 0*. In that case, Bob's reading is deterministic. However, at other angles, it's uncertain. Hence, the system doesn't jump to a final state until after his measurement. It occurs to me, this is likely the reason it took 30 years until Bell saw his chance - everybody was stuck in the rut of only considering aligned detectors. However, I agree with you, that the system must jump to a new state after Al's measurement; an intermediate state, so to speak. Then it transitions again after Bob's interaction. > The reason this interpretation makes sense to some extent is that > the second particle will _not_ necessarily yield > "up" in the z-direction if the first particle hadn't been measured in the > z-direction previously. IOW, the second particle has no way of knowing > in advance what we are going to do with the first particle: the key > question being: what if I suddenly decide to measure the first particle > in the x-direction? I don't see your point here, or what the problem is. If you don't measure the first particle, the system remains stochastic, with the particles entangled and anti-correlated. So? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web