Quantum entangled-photon Chinese satellite.
Zenaan Harkness
zen at freedbms.net
Thu Aug 4 23:18:40 PDT 2016
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:19:19AM +0200, Bastiani Fortress wrote:
> As i can remember, the point was when two particles are entangled,
> they bear the same quantum state, and they simultaneously shift
> their states önce either of them is "observed".
And if you 'observe' at the other side, you can determine that the first
side was already observed. Apparently.
Which is 1 bit (perhaps 1/2 a bit) of data transfer.
If this is not the case, then the descriptions on this list so far are
ambiguous to the point of not being interpretable... which would be
unfortunate.
I think someone's gonna have to try explaining again..
> So you know that the other twin is in the same state, but you
> cannot code it at will, and since you don't know its first state
> without having "observed" it, you cannot determine whether the
> other twin has been observed or not (that would be 1 bit of data
> streaming). This is what i remember from what i read years ago,
> please correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> 5:11 AM, August 5, 2016, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>:
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:29:07 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:58:11PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> > From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC)
> > jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then some
> > > information must be being transmitted. If no information is
> > > being transmitted, then by definition, there's no way to
> > > measure
> > > speed and the claim makes no sense.
> > Well, that's the problem. Knowing that SOMETHING is being
> > transmitted, and actuallyUSING that method to transmit useful
> > information, are (quite strangely) two differentthings. That, also
> > is the amazing implications of entangled photons.
> It does sound like the obvious is being missed - so entangled photon
> paris can be created, and we can know at one end, if the photon at the
> other end is "read", and this apparently happens at at a minimum of
> 10k.c;
> Surely, one could simply create a suitably large number of entangled
> photon pairs, as an array, and then read them, or not read them, at
> the end you want to "send" information from, and "detect" (so this
> weird quantum mechanics story goes) those reads at the other end.
> Read + Not read = 1 bit.
> What seems to be implied in the stories so far is that the information
> must be transmitted through changing states of a single entangled
> photon
> - which assumption makes no sense at all. There's a purported
> phenomena, use it!
>
> Yep. It either works or not. And if it works you should be able
> to get some 'macroscopic' result/data transmission (of course
> the micro/macro divide is just pseudo-scientific, absurd
> bullshit)
> I don't know if it works or not, though I notice that Cari
> posted a source claiming
> "Everyone agrees that quantum entanglement does not allow
> information to be transmitted faster that light. "
> I take that to mean that the authorities don't actually agree,
> although perhaps the majority says : no.
> Regardless, if there is something propagates at faster than
> light speed, then it should be possible to send information
> using that AND there would be nothing absurd about that,
> contrary to Jim B's abssurd defense of absurd, pseudo
> cientific 'interpretations'.
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t
> "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue"
> It should be self-evident that absurdities have no place in
> science or even in philosophy.
>
> What are we missing here?
>
> --
> You’re not from the Castle, you’re not from the village, you are nothing. Unfortunately, though, you are something, a
> stranger.
--
Free Australia: www.UPMART.org
Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.
More information about the Testlist
mailing list