| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"HansJud" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2004 04:45:59 PM |
| Object: |
Faster than light |
I created a 'Gedankanenexperiment' based on etnangled photons. Who can
tell me, what is wrong?
My homepage: homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
Hans
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
16 Jun 2004 11:29:44 PM |
|
|
Hans, have you read
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World; email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
17 Jun 2004 07:23:34 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:40D11E35.A89C0E77@mchsi.com...
Hans, have you read
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
A far less positive review:
http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/rev61.htm
I guess this book is probably like most popular science:
a nice read for those who are more or less familiar with
the field, but a crackpot factory for confused laymen.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
17 Jun 2004 08:03:28 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:40D11E35.A89C0E77@mchsi.com...
Hans, have you read
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
A far less positive review:
http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/rev61.htm
I guess this book is probably like most popular science:
a nice read for those who are more or less familiar with
the field, but a crackpot factory for confused laymen.
Dirk Vdm
Wow--sour grapes at "popular science". In my experience, there
is a strong correlation among people who read "popular science"
and people that don't know much science (or any physics). That's
a shame.
I think the words I posted are from a reveiw in "Physics Today".
.
|
|
|
| User: "HansJud" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
17 Jun 2004 11:25:49 AM |
|
|
Sam,thanks for the answer.
Yes, I have read the book, one of many laymenbooks, but one of my
favorites. (forgive my bad english language). Its like an amateur of art
that cannot paint pictures himself. I am just a layman, maybe with no
idea about physics, but my logic thinking is intact. And so I dare tosak
questions....
If Alain Aspect was wright in his tests, why doesent my
Gedankenexperiment work? Please visit my homepage:
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
Hans
Sam Wormley wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:40D11E35.A89C0E77@mchsi.com...
Hans, have you read
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00hb
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
A far less positive review:
http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/rev61.htm
I guess this book is probably like most popular science:
a nice read for those who are more or less familiar with
the field, but a crackpot factory for confused laymen.
Dirk Vdm
Wow--sour grapes at "popular science". In my experience, there
is a strong correlation among people who read "popular science"
and people that don't know much science (or any physics). That's
a shame.
I think the words I posted are from a reveiw in "Physics Today".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
17 Jun 2004 11:43:44 AM |
|
|
"Hans
Sam,thanks for the answer.
Yes, I have read the book, one of many laymenbooks, but one of my
favorites. (forgive my bad english language). Its like an amateur of art
that cannot paint pictures himself. I am just a layman, maybe with no
idea about physics, but my logic thinking is intact. And so I dare tosak
questions....
If Alain Aspect was wright in his tests, why doesent my
Gedankenexperiment work? Please visit my homepage:
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
Hans
Hans--You MUST keep in mind that verification (or the transmission of
any arbitrary message) is restricted to the speed of light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "HansJud" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
17 Jun 2004 03:18:12 PM |
|
|
Hi Sam...Does that mean, that entanglement of photons doesn't exist....
or that I misunderstand that phenomena? I know of course, that in
Einstein's theory speed of light maximum speed. But aren't scientist
baffled from the phenomena of entanglement, tunneling, behavior of
photons, electrons in double slit experiments etc. etc., Heisenberg's
uncertainty?
Sam Wormley wrote:
"Hans
Sam,thanks for the answer.
Yes, I have read the book, one of many laymenbooks, but one of my
favorites. (forgive my bad english language). Its like an amateur of art
that cannot paint pictures himself. I am just a layman, maybe with no
idea about physics, but my logic thinking is intact. And so I dare tosak
questions....
If Alain Aspect was wright in his tests, why doesent my
Gedankenexperiment work? Please visit my homepage:
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
Hans
Hans--You MUST keep in mind that verification (or the transmission of
any arbitrary message) is restricted to the speed of light.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
16 Jun 2004 05:04:21 PM |
|
|
"Hans
I created a 'Gedankanenexperiment' based on etnangled photons. Who can
tell me, what is wrong?
My homepage: homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
Hans
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/Seite%20003.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
16 Jun 2004 05:57:56 PM |
|
|
"Hans
I created a 'Gedankanenexperiment' based on etnangled photons. Who can
tell me, what is wrong?
My homepage: homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
An entangled event can occur without information transfer. That is
the essence of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paraodx and the Bell
inequality. There is every reason to believe that collapse of the
wavefunction inot an observable is instantaneous throughout the entire
span and volume of the universe. The data collected at remote sites
does not become information until the apparently random separate
datasets are compared - which process is limited to no greater than
lightspeed conveyance of information.
The answer arrives instantaneously. The rules for reading the answer
take the usual slow passage. Not even entangled Morse code will work.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
17 Jun 2004 11:56:25 AM |
|
|
"Hans<Jud" <heyjude@tele2.ch> wrote in message
news:rc3Ac.52344$zm5.26820@nntpserver.swip.net...
I created a 'Gedankanenexperiment' based on etnangled photons. Who can
tell me, what is wrong?
My homepage: homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
Hans
The reason entangled links break in the first place is because of
noise,which is a complex variable, containing both real and imaginary parts.
Information you may also try to send directly through such a link is also
complex, so any information you send through the entangled link will cause
it to collapse. This is why entangled links always yield random information
directly. The only way to send meaningful information through the link is to
make it noise free - and the only kind of information that is totally
noiseless is imaginary information. If you want to know more, peruse my web
site.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
16 Jun 2004 10:42:28 PM |
|
|
"Hans<Jud" <heyjude@tele2.ch> wrote in message news:<rc3Ac.52344$zm5.26820@nntpserver.swip.net>...
I created a 'Gedankanenexperiment' based on etnangled photons. Who can
tell me, what is wrong?
My homepage: homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
Hans
The filter can either absorb or transmit the photons on the left, and
each possibility has a 50% chance of happening. If the photons on the
left are absorbed, the entangled photons will be polarized
perpendicular to the way they would be polarized if the photons on the
left were transmitted. If you only counted the photons that had been
entangled with ones that were transmitted, or vice versa, you would
get a "hallo" signal at the other end. But the person at the other
end doesn't know which photons were absorbed, and which were
transmitted. All he knows is that 50% of the photons make it through
the filter. Until the person on the left tells him which photons were
transmitted and which were not, no meaningful information can be said
to have been sent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Faster than light |
16 Jun 2004 11:44:37 PM |
|
|
Hans<Jud wrote:
I created a 'Gedankanenexperiment' based on etnangled photons. Who can
tell me, what is wrong?
My homepage: homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/heyjude/
I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like you are building the whole thing
based on the "transmission" of information "Hallo" *from* one place *to*
another.
From what I have seen about entanglement, data/information is not *sent*, both
photons states are always the same.. so since the information wouldn't be
*transmitted* across the space between them, they don't violate the FTL rule.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
