Ok, yeah, it sounds crazy to all of you, but here it is, feel free to poke holes:

The way I see time dialation issues is due to our clocks and using light and the distance traveled as a clock. However, there is a clock that can be made to keep time THE SAME in a stationary refrence frame and one at relativistic speed. It involves quantum entanglement.

Develop a series of pairs of quantum entangled particles: A&B, C&D, E&F, ...
(where A&B are entangled, C&D are entangled, etc.)

Then separate them so that in a stationary clock A,C,E,... will remain. Send B,D,F,etc... away in a rocket at relativistic speed. Now the way the clock works.. at regular intervals, make a change to A,C,E, in order... that will be the ticks of the clock. At the same time, since entanglement has been observed to be instantenous, B,D,F will be changed the moment their stationary partners will. This provides a clock inside the relativistic rocket that ticks at the same time the stationary clock ticks. This setup eliminates all the effects of the light clock thought experiment. What do you think are the consequences???

Mmmmm......interesting........ I can't see much wrong with it anyway!!!

Maybe there is something to do with the fact that there IS no instantaneous between 2 frames. When scientists refer to instantaneity as regards entanglement, I presume they are referring to 1 F.O.R.

Something I would like to add that I just realized as well... People are going through loops (hehe, pun not intended) to combine relativity and quantum mechanics. My clock uses quantum mechanics to try to solve relativity issues. I'm gonna try to see where this takes me.. wish I knew more about both :D

Here is the first consequence of the Quantum Entangled Clock Experiment.

Time Dilation and the Light Clock using QEC:

Starting with principles of special relativity:

1. principle of relativity – the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference
2. light postulate – the speed of light in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the source

Consider the following setup. There is a Quantum Entangled Clock (black square) attached to a mirror. The other half of the Quantum Entangled Clock is on a mirror moving away at relativistic speed. The mirrors remain at a constant distance L from another mirror, which is parallel to the first. Since the speed of light in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the source, each arrow represents the distance the light traveled during one “tick” of the Quantum Entangled Clock.

QELC diagram (http://www.geocities.com/bustakappakapa2/index.htm)

The above is my version of the classic Light Clock, which I will call the Quantum Entangled Light Clock (QELC). Let S represent the frame of reference in which the Light Clock is at rest. Let “t” be equal to the number of “ticks” of the QEC. “t” is therefore the time between the two events defined as:

Event 1: Light is emitted

Event 2: Light is detected.

as measured in S.

What we will find is that for the stationary clock it takes 4 “ticks” for the light to make the round trip and reach event 2. The moving clock in this case will take 5 “ticks” for the light to make the round trip and reach event 2. What are the consequences of this result?

Here are some options:

1. Quantum Entanglement does not exist.
2. Speed of light slows down in a moving reference frame.
3. Speed of light increases if we are going to say that moving clock should experience 4 ticks.
4. Because the inertial reference frames are now correlated, some weird quantum mechanical effect is taking place due to that correlation.
5. We can actually tell who is at rest and who is moving. Because it does not matter who’s ticks we use for the baseline to run the other clock off of, the light in the moving clock will take more ticks to reach event 2.

Fallen Angel:

Then separate them so that in a stationary clock A,C,E,... will remain. Send B,D,F,etc... away in a rocket at relativistic speed. Now the way the clock works.. at regular intervals, make a change to A,C,E, in order... that will be the ticks of the clock. At the same time, since entanglement has been observed to be instantenous, B,D,F will be changed the moment their stationary partners will. This provides a clock inside the relativistic rocket that ticks at the same time the stationary clock ticks. This setup eliminates all the effects of the light clock thought experiment. What do you think are the consequences???

The problem with this is that you don't avoid the relativity of simultaneity this way. Events which appear simultaneous in one reference frame (the frame of particles A,C,E etc.) will not be simultaneous in another frame (B,D,F etc.). Introducing quantum entanglement doesn't solve the problem; it merely obscures the main issue.

I disagree, and here is why. I still think that simultaneity will be relative, as you describe (at a first glance at least, i reserve the right to change my mind later :D). However, that is due to the limit of the speed of light. In the above clock experiment, simultaneity due to light speed has no effect, because the information between the stationary clock and the moving clock is exchanged via entanglement, which has no speed limit. Do you disagree that for the moving clock, in my setup, the clock will "tick" 5 times before event 2 happens? The simltaneity of the clock "ticks," I feel, is different from the simultaneity as defined by light speed. Do you agree? Disagree? Could you explain why the two simultaneities should be the same?

Fallen Angel:

The equations of relativity do not relate directly to light travel times. The Lorentz transformations assume that any travel times of light between two spatial locations have already been factored out. Relative motion between two observers means that clocks in their respective reference frames cannot be synchronised, whatever method you may postulate to try to do that. That includes quantum entanglement.

Ok, I'll study the math and shall return with a more mathematical formulation :D

Well James R, what about this report relating to simultaneity of quantum entanglement???

Quantum correlation with moving beamsplitters in relativistic configuration

ANDRE STEFANOV, HUGO ZBINDEN, NICOLAS GISIN and ANTOINE SUAREZ*

Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland

*Center for Quantum Philosophy, P.O. Box 304, CH-8044 Zurich, Switzerland

Abstract. We present a recent experiment [1] using space-like beamsplitters in motion revealing a new feature of quantum nonlocality: The correlations caused by two-particle quantum entanglement are not only independent of distance (as we already know from the conventional Bell-type experiments) but also independent of the time-ordering between the two single-photon measurements. Hence, it seems impossible to cast them in any real time ordering and maintain a causal explanation in which an earlier event influences a later one by arbitrarily fast communication.

Keywords. Quantum correlations; special relativity.

PACS Nos 03.65.Ud; 03.65.Ta; 42.50.Ar

Fallen Angle,

Damn, I think I could hear a pin drop in here. :D

Here is a link to the center.
http://www.quantumphil.org/

Here is a link to a paper:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0311/0311004.pdf

Interesting, Fallen Angel.

MacM, do you understand what that paper is about?

Interesting, Fallen Angel.

MacM, do you understand what that paper is about?

In general yes. I did read it.

Good.

.....................(10 chars)

Good.

.....................(10 chars)

Did your question have any bearing on the inclusion of "psi" as part of their references? If so I noted that.

Good.

.....................(10 chars)

So after relativity, Mac is gonna attack quantum mechanics now ? This is gonna be fun, I wanna make sure I have front row seats!

The paper starts out fishy (center for philosophy ... bohmian mechanics...). Let me read it in more detail before I comment on it :).

The paper doesn't attack Quantum Mechanics. It does show SR's simultaniety is
not correct. If QM is to survive, it has to drop relativity's timelines, its frames of
reference. No surprise to me. That is, unless you want to accept Beauregards violation
of causality and things happening in the past, the 'psi' crap and telepathy.

As I already suspected, the paper refered to above is ... dubious to say at least.

First of all, the author seems to be under the impression that quantum mechanics "... says nothing conditional probabilities expressing the dependence between the outcomes". This is not correct: conditional probabilities naturally enter through initial conditions in QM, and knowledge of a measurement result earlier in time conditions possible results at later times (of the same system, but keep in mind that entangled photons are to be described as one system).

There are problems with the conditional probabilities relating outcomes of experiments at several times. I refer to Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind (p356 and following in the 1989 edition) for a laymen's description (even though Penrose is also not entirely correct, but maybe I'll come back to that later).

The rest of the paper is a huge advertisement for the "multisimultaneity" interpretation of quantum mechanics, proposed by the author.

I have some problems with that interpretation; it uses relativistic arguments, and hence should be considered to be more of a "quantum field theory" interpretation than ordinary quantum mechanics ... which makes it quite unique since (usually?) nothing is said about measurements in "higher" quantum theories.
I am also not sure if scientists should tackle the multi-observer non-local entanglement effects, if none of the individual components is very well understood by conventional quantum mechanics, but this is more a gut feeling than an argument.
What I find lacking is an example or a small calculation which support the arguments of the author. He formally talks about some probability P(σ|ρ) without properly defining it, he does not speak about the equation(s) that this probability obeys, ... I suspect it is kept deliberately vague.
And finally, the words
We argue that recent experiments demonstrate that the dependence expressed by P(σ|ρ) actually exists but it is in principle unobservable and does not correspond to any real time ordening.
seem like a huge contradiction in itself (there are experiments that he uses, even though he admits what he proposes is unmeasureable?). It also clearly shows that one should place what he says in the proper context; it is philosophy and not science (and I must admit that I have already heard many outrageous claims by philosophers).

I also doubt that Bell used the conditional probability P(σ|ρ) to express the entanglement between the particles, but I'll have to look up his original 1964 article to confirm this.

Well, that is my impression after a quick (60minute) read. I am a bit curious about what others with a background in quantum mechanics and/or field theory think about the text.

Bye!

Crisp

So after relativity, Mac is gonna attack quantum mechanics now ? This is gonna be fun, I wanna make sure I have front row seats!

The paper starts out fishy (center for philosophy ... bohmian mechanics...). Let me read it in more detail before I comment on it :).

Good morning Crisp. :D

Actually I didn't attack anything. I merely provided links to the refrenced material. You should have also noted my comment to James R. and that I recognized the dubious or questionable content.

: "Did your question have any bearing on the inclusion of "psi" as part of their references? If so I noted that.

Toward the end I got the impression they were past the fringes of verifiable physics.

this is the actual article i was referring to

http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~simons/Publikationen/quant-ph_0210015v1.pdf

first they describe their setup, and then in part IV. Multisimultaneity, they describe how multisimultaneity does not agree with experiment, and that there is quantum correlation irrespective of time ordering of the events.

even if there is an actual time dialation in different inertial reference frames, then theoretically, we can still set up an experiment that will determine the reference frame that is at absolute rest. we can continually move one of the clocks and compare the number of ticks between event 1 and 2 (see the light clock setup at beginning). the frame of reference with less ticks is more at rest than the other, or slower. this can be continued until no other reference frame is more at rest, that is, until we find the slowest reference frame, the stationary one. and if this setup is possible, is there a simpler way of writing down the laws of physics once one knows the inertial reference frame that is at absolute rest?

Fallen Angel, the ticks on clock by entangled particles had the effect of making another idea pop up in my head. I know Special Relativity says it can't be done,
but I want to know why this won't work. Use entangled particles to transmit a
message by a Morris Code like method, instanteously. After first separating two
groups of entangled particles (photons or whatever works best), a person at either
group can send a message by destroying entangled particles in a time-like fashion,
you know, long-short-short-long spacing like used by the old telegraphs. Surely
someone has thought of this idea before, so why would it not work?

2Inquisitive,

Excellent idea. The fact is they probably haven't thought of that. I had suggest another means of communicating in another thread and that would be to send a string of entangled particles and then selectively alter positions in the string to form a binary message.

Seems to me either approach overcomes the "No Communication" arguement.

2Inquisitive,

Excellent idea. The fact is they probably haven't thought of that. I had suggest another means of communicating in another thread and that would be to send a string of entangled particles and then selectively alter positions in the string to form a binary message.

Seems to me either approach overcomes the "No Communication" arguement.

No, this just means you both have not understood what entanglement is all about. You cannot transmit any information using entanglement. To understand what it really is about, you'll need to take advanced courses. All I can say is that the entanglement effect is "local" (it happens only for one observer and the other notices nothing about it).

Perhaps you need to brush up on quantum entanglement, Crisp. Information has been
sent by quantum entanglement many times, although so far mostly as encryption keys.
Here is a link to an papre on a bank transfer using Quantum Cryptography. A cut & paste first:
"Today, the Bank Austria Creditanstalt has, on behalf of the City of Vienna, performed the
World’s first bank transfer encoded via quantum cryptography.
This novel technology was demonstrated by the group of Professor Anton Zeilinger, Vienna
University in collaboration with the group Quantum Technologies (Information Technologies
Division) of Seibersdorf research. The bank transfer was initiated by Vienna’s Mayor Dr.
Michael Häupl, and executed by the Director of the Bank Austria Creditanstalt, Dr. Erich
Hampel. The information was sent via a glass fiber cable, laid by the company Wien Kanal
Abwassertechnologien from the Vienna City Hall to the Bank Austria Creditanstalt branch
office “Schottengasse”."
http://www.quantenkryptographie.at/Quantum%20Cryptography%2021%20April%2004.pdf

A more detailed paper is from Los Alamos National Labs, U.S. Dept. of Energy. A cut
and paste:
In the Los Alamos implementation of Ekert’s cryptography protocol,
researchers used a pair of special optical crystals placed in a beam of
ultraviolet light from a laser. Occasionally an ultraviolet photon from the
laser is converted into two infrared photons. These daughter photons
share the almost magical correlations of entanglement.
The polarization-entangled photons are then transmitted to the communicating
parties — historically called “Alice” and “Bob” by
cryptographers — to create a random string of 0’s and 1’s known only to
them. This string of numbers becomes the quantum cryptographic key.
Because the photons cannot be intercepted without tipping off Alice and
Bob, the key is secure, as is any data subsequently encrypted with it."

"Therefore, to access longer distances,
researchers here developed free-space quantum cryptography, which
allows codes to be sent through the air.
Recently Hughes’ group demonstrated free-space code transmissions
over a mile, with the eventual goal of earth-to-satellite communication.
This free-space transmission set a world record."
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/dateline/Dateline1100.pdf

Wow, this is fask-i-natin' !

Perhaps you need to brush up on quantum entanglement, Crisp. Information has been sent by quantum entanglement many times, although so far mostly as encryption keys.Quantum encryption is not the same as transferring information by way of quantum entanglement. Although the entangled state is transmitted 'non locally' one cannot 'decode' the encryption without information passed at the speed of light or less. As I understand it, this essentially applies towards any proposed method of transferring information via entangled states. The state could not be used as a simultaneous 'clock tick' because the state is not known until it is measured and then it is set and if you were to change the state the measurement could not be properly made until information had passed at the speed of light from one clock to the other.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox


~Raithere

More is being learned about quantum entanglement. Entangled photons can now be
time-correlated, spin-correlated or frequency-correlated. At least two of the states
can be combined. New research on plasmon-assisted transmissions of entangled photons seem to make it possible to determine the spin (polarization) of entangled
photons without destroying them. It involves passing entangled photons through a
metal plate with sub-wavelength sized holes in it. The photon will change into a plasmon going through the hole and reemerge as a photon on the other side without
lossing its entangled state. It is thought the spin may be determined this way without
destroying the photon. That would not be necessary in my example above, only time-
collelated photons would be necessary and the timing between events (destruction)
could be used for a code, like a Morris code. Of course, the entangled photons would
have to be manufactered and then separated by a distance before the message could
be sent and the separation could not happen FTL, but the actual code and message
could. Entangled photons would have to be created, stored at two locations, and as
the photons are destroyed one at a time in a timed sequence at the sending location,
a detector in the receiving location would record the timed sequence, the Morris code.
Here is a link to a site where you can download the pdf paper Entanglement and Surface Plasmons. I couldn't get a direct link to the paper itself.
http://www.molphys.leidenuniv.nl/qo/index.html

Here is a link to a very good paper describing the various types of entanglement and
how frequency-entangled photons can be created at specific frequencies.

"A method for generating entangled photons with controllable frequency correlation via spontaneous parametric
down-conversion ~SPDC! is presented. The method entails initiating counterpropagating SPDC in a
single-mode nonlinear waveguide by pumping with a pulsed beam perpendicular to the waveguide. The
method offers several advantages over other schemes, including the ability to generate frequency-correlated
photon pairs regardless of the dispersion characteristics of the system."
http://people.bu.edu/teich/pdfs/PRA-67-053810-2003.pdf

the reason i think you could use entanglement as a "clock tick" is because what you are doing by measuring one quantum particle is disturbing its quantum state. This in turn will disturb the quantum state of a particle in another clock. sure, no information has passed, but you still notice the "disturb" event, and that is all that is required for a clock.

as for information, if the rocket ship originates from earth and you agree on a code, then anything after that, instantenous commo, because you yourself in the ship is/are? the slower than lightspeed information exchange.

yeah, i should refresh before posting :D

No, this just means you both have not understood what entanglement is all about. You cannot transmit any information using entanglement. To understand what it really is about, you'll need to take advanced courses. All I can say is that the entanglement effect is "local" (it happens only for one observer and the other notices nothing about it).

No, this just means you both have not understood what entanglement is all about. You cannot transmit any information using entanglement. To understand what it really is about, you'll need to take advanced courses. All I can say is that the entanglement effect is "local" (it happens only for one observer and the other notices nothing about it).

I know I don't need to tell you to correct me if I am wrong. :D

However, your typiical comment suggesting advanced course seems a bit out of place when one looks at the overall picture and the status as currently being presented by those actually working in the field.

What I am saying is that it take more than innuendo about our education to show the failure you claim.

1 - There have been several recent breakthroughs. A number of different groups have shown how they can selectively set entanglement. That is establish a spin-up, spin-down or super position correlation, not just random entangled pairs.

2 - They have also shown how to generate multiple or groups of entangled particles. So that one could set an array of say 10 entangled pairs, 10 entangled sets of 4, 10 sets of 6, 10 sets of 8, etc.

Other than mere binary coding actual letters could be indicated. i.e.: 2 = A, 4 = B, 6 = C, 8 = D, etc. By Bob disrupting the entanglement selectively he could therefore pass along a coded word to Alice.

Now I know you disagree with information transfer but that I am afraid is nothing more than a bias; which seems to be rapidly falling behind the times.

However, your typiical comment suggesting advanced course seems a bit out of place when one looks at the overall picture and the status as currently being presented by those actually working in the field.

Judging by the rest of your answer, I can only say that you have only the "general" picture of quantum cryptography and entanglement, and thus also the mistakes that come with that picture.

What I am saying is that it take more than innuendo about our education to show the failure you claim.

Fine. You cannot transfer information using quantum entanglement alone. You can use entanglement as a protection for cryptography, but then the information is transfered at speeds smaller than the speed of light.

But hey, you are the expert so it seems.... :rolleyes:

Fine. You cannot transfer information using quantum entanglement alone. You can use entanglement as a protection for cryptography, but then the information is transfered at speeds smaller than the speed of light.

But hey, you are the expert so it seems.... :rolleyes:

Certainly no expert and have never claimed to be but I'll note your post failed to address the issue I raised about creating variable sets of entangled pairs and selectively disrupting the entanglement to transfer alphabetical letters.

That is information and no 'c' or subluminal carrier is required.

Lets try to address this issue and not make this a pissing match.

Certainly no expert and have never claimed to be but I'll note your post failed to address the issue I raised about creating variable sets of entangled pairs and selectively disrupting the entanglement to transfer alphabetical letters.

That is information and no 'c' or subluminal carrier is required.

Look Mac, I am not going to debate on quantum mechanics with you. I know that you know hardly anything about it (and this is really really really a mathematical theory) so there is absolutely no point in trying to explain you what goes on quantum mechanically. I already gave you the explanation in "words" (i DID address the issue earlier): you cannot use entanglement to carry information "instantly" as was suggested by 2inquisitive at the beginning of this thread.

You want to know why ? Learn quantum mechanics, there is no "good" way of putting measurement procedures into words (unless you know what is meant by phrases like measurement reduces the wavefunction to an eigenstate of the hermitian observable that you are measuring).

Perhaps you need to brush up on quantum entanglement, Crisp. Information has been sent by quantum entanglement many times, although so far mostly as encryption keys.

I am very well aware of what happens in quantum cryptography. Note that the entanglement is added as a security measure (to detect eavesdropping). Note how the information is transferred at speeds smaller than the speed of light.

This is in huge contrast with your statement of a few posts earlier, where you suggested that entanglement could be used to transfer morse code instantly.

Crisp, I suggested you brush up on quantum entanglement because of your statement
that the entanglement effect was 'local'. The very essence of quantum entanglement
is that it is non-local. Quantum entanglement is not compatible with relativity's time-
lines. I thought all physicists knew that. Measuring the properties of one photon of
a pair of entangled photons causes an 'instantanous' event in the other photon. With
relativity's timelines, the reaction happens before the action that caused it always
in one frame of reference. It is a violation of causality, doing something 'now' causes
something to happen in the 'past' using relativity's frames of reference. According to
relativity, there can be no simultanous time between two frames of reference separated by a distance, but quantum entanglement proves this wrong, unless you
are willing to accept that you can cause events to happen in the past. Much more
logical to admit relativity's frames of reference are wrong and there can be an absolute
time. Efforts to reconcile QM and relativity have produced the view that, well no
information can be exchanged by entanglement to eliminate any time paradoxes that
would arise if relativity is retained. I believe it is only a question of time before information IS exchanged instantly by quantum entanglement. They are very close
to being able to do it now. This has been a heated topic of debate between supporters
of relativity and supporters of Quantum Mechanics for years. I side with the supporters
of QM. Bet that is a surprise to you, huh?

Crisp, I suggested you brush up on quantum entanglement because of your statement that the entanglement effect was 'local'. The very essence of quantum entanglement is that it is non-local. Quantum entanglement is not compatible with relativity's time-
lines. I thought all physicists knew that. Measuring the properties of one photon of a pair of entangled photons causes an 'instantanous' event in the other photon.

... but only for the local observer! That is what I meant. If you measure something an entangled photon pair, where one photon is here on earth and the other is on alpha centauri, then you know what state the other photon is in, but not the observer on alpha centauri. He knows nothing until you transmit your outcome to him (using classical communication), or if he performs the measurement himself -- which does not guarantee him finding the same result!

That is what I meant by "local", but I admit that it was a very bad choice of words, given the non-local nature of quantum mechanics ;).

I disagree with your statement that entanglement is in disagreement with any concept of relativity. Both have been reconciled without any problem.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp, I suggested you brush up on quantum entanglement because of your statement
that the entanglement effect was 'local'. The very essence of quantum entanglement
is that it is non-local. Quantum entanglement is not compatible with relativity's time-
lines. I thought all physicists knew that. Measuring the properties of one photon of
a pair of entangled photons causes an 'instantanous' event in the other photon. With
relativity's timelines, the reaction happens before the action that caused it always
in one frame of reference. It is a violation of causality, doing something 'now' causes
something to happen in the 'past' using relativity's frames of reference. According to
relativity, there can be no simultanous time between two frames of reference separated by a distance, but quantum entanglement proves this wrong, unless you
are willing to accept that you can cause events to happen in the past. Much more
logical to admit relativity's frames of reference are wrong and there can be an absolute
time. Efforts to reconcile QM and relativity have produced the view that, well no
information can be exchanged by entanglement to eliminate any time paradoxes that
would arise if relativity is retained. I believe it is only a question of time before information IS exchanged instantly by quantum entanglement. They are very close
to being able to do it now. This has been a heated topic of debate between supporters
of relativity and supporters of Quantum Mechanics for years. I side with the supporters
of QM. Bet that is a surprise to you, huh?


Crisp is right I know very little about QM technically since it is mostly mathematical but I am familiar with the wave concepts involved but on the whole I am very much on your side of the argument and I find the claim that such communication cannot occur based on "because I say so" or "Because Relativity says so", very much in contrast to the general belief of those actually working on such QM functions.

Relativists simply will not flex, they must be buried before they stop wiggling.

Crisp, I think all of us mentioned the set up as both parties starting off in the same place, and then departing. Thus, the quantum entangled particles originate from the same source, so, they themselves can only move slower than light. That way we can say that the information was already contained in the particles, and by measuring them (and thus causing an effect in the other entangled one), we just pull out the information that already traveled to us at less than the speed of light. That's my understanding of it being less than c. and i see what you're saying about having to actually measure the particle. my understanding is that by making a measurement on one of the entangled particles, the other one is affected in some way that can generate a measurement indication without us having to initiate it. is this correct?

Crisp, I think all of us mentioned the set up as both parties starting off in the same place, and then departing. Thus, the quantum entangled particles originate from the same source, so, they themselves can only move slower than light. That way we can say that the information was already contained in the particles, and by measuring them (and thus causing an effect in the other entangled one), we just pull out the information that already traveled to us at less than the speed of light. That's my understanding of it being less than c. and i see what you're saying about having to actually measure the particle. my understanding is that by making a measurement on one of the entangled particles, the other one is affected in some way that can generate a measurement indication without us having to initiate it. is this correct?

If you pre-selected (coded) the particles, what you say would be true about transfer of information a sub-c velocity. But what of the case where such particles are all set to i.e. - an up spin and then selectively destroy the entanglement triggering an output which can represent a coded message?

even then, you still have to seperate them at sub-c velocity yes? unless there is a way to generate entanglement without the particles interacting with each by conventional means. but i thought this was impossible? (generating entanglement without exchange info at sub-c speeds?)

Crisp, I think all of us mentioned the set up as both parties starting off in the same place, and then departing.

Fine, I only replied to say that you cannot use it to transfer information faster than the speed of light, which was suggested by 2inquisitive and then acknowledged by MacM (who saw in it another reason to bash on relativity). That is all. I did not intend to go further.

My understanding is that by making a measurement on one of the entangled particles, the other one is affected in some way that can generate a measurement indication without us having to initiate it. is this correct?

Yes, but only for observers who know the outcome of the experiment. From the instant you measure ONE of the photons, you know, by entanglement, what the other photon would give as a result if you were to measure that photon.

The problem some people have is when you can put this other photon 20 lightyears away. If they are still entangled, you have "instant" information of a possible outcome of an experiment that is 20 lightyears away.

However, the observer which is standing next to the other photon does not know this, he knows nothing until he performs the measurement himself, or waits 20 years until you transfered him the result of your measurement.

In that sense, the information transfer by entanglement is is "local", you know it, but noone else. In that sense, it also does not violate any relativistic limitation. It is like one of those "a shadow can move faster than the speed of light" phenomena which at first sight seems to contradict relativity, but when looked at more closely, is perfectly consistent.

Bye!

Crisp

even then, you still have to seperate them at sub-c velocity yes? unless there is a way to generate entanglement without the particles interacting with each by conventional means. but i thought this was impossible? (generating entanglement without exchange info at sub-c speeds?)


This would seem to be correct. But the difference would be that you must estblish your communication net work at sub-c but any future communication could be FTL.

Crisp,

by MacM (who saw in it another reason to bash on relativity).

That was not the basis of posting at all. I really don't care if it is consistant or inconsistant with Relativity. I am interested only in the potential to make use of the technology.

From what you just said above it seems you are saying the message can be sent FTL but the receiver doesn't know he has a message or when to check for a message. Is that correct? If so it seems Relativists are abscuring the problem by saying information can't be sent FTL. It would seem in fact that it can. Readability or receipt of such message is the current limitation.

That would appear to theoretically be eliminated by having a series of entangled particles that the receiver checks at a fixed period and have an FTL trigger of that string to alert the receiver that he had a message and to read the entangled file when the carrier series indicates a change (flag) of status.

MacM,

Measurement, of any sort, destroys the entanglement. You cannot poll your particle to see when it changes, because the first such measurement will destroy its entanglement. No, there is no way to poll it without destroying its entanglement. I strongly advise you to actually read or learn about entanglement before jumping to conclusions about what relativists (also known more simply as 'physicists') say or don't say about it. I also know that's just wishful thinking.

- Warren

chroot, you will be interested in this. Information has already been transferred AND
RETAINED by quantum entanglement.

"Professor Rainer Blatt, of the University of Innsbruck, told BBC News Online: "This is a milestone.

"We are able to teleport in a deliberate way - that is, at the push of a button. This has been done before, but not in such a way that you can keep the information there at the end."

Professor Blatt's team, an Austrian-US group, performed the teleportation on calcium ions. The Nist team in Boulder, Colorado, used ions of the element beryllium.

Despite this and some differences in the experimental methods used by the two groups, both teams reached similar values of fidelity - around 0.75."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3811785.stm

2inquisitive,

No information is being trasmitted faster than light in that experiment.

- Warren

chroot, all they have to do is separate the entangled ions by a larger distance so
the transfer could be timed. The information was passed between unconnected,
entangled ions. Why would you deny the transfer was not instantanious?

2inquisitive,

The state is teleported 'instantaneously,' but you cannot choose which state the local particle will wind up in -- so you cannot transmit any information.

- Warren

Step 1: A pair of entangled ions are created: B and C
Step 2: The state to be teleported is created in ion A
Step 3: One ion from the pair - in this case B - is entangled with A and both are measured
Step 4: The result of this measurement is sent to ion C
Step 5: The state of C is now the same as that created for A

2inquisitive,

You cannot control the result of the measurement at step 3. I have no idea why you're arguing with me, but I assume it's because you really have no idea what you're talking about, aside from what you read in articles like this one. Trust me, quantum entanglement does not provide a mechanism for sending information instantaneously.

- Warren

Read step 5. The state of ion A, created before the teleportion took place, was
transmitted to ion C. Are you saying they didn't know the state of ion A beforehand?

No, I'm saying that there's no way for the remote recipient to know that the teleportation has even happened until the sender calls him on the telephone to tell him. Once again, you cannot send any information faster than light with entanglement. Period.

- Warren

Just call me unappeased. Period.

I don't care how appeased you are. Go educate yourself.

- Warren

MacM,

Measurement, of any sort, destroys the entanglement. You cannot poll your particle to see when it changes, because the first such measurement will destroy its entanglement. No, there is no way to poll it without destroying its entanglement. I strongly advise you to actually read or learn about entanglement before jumping to conclusions about what relativists (also known more simply as 'physicists') say or don't say about it. I also know that's just wishful thinking.

- Warren

Hello chroot,

I understand everything you said above but that doesn't address the issue.

They can now "set" the entangled condition they want. They can also create groups of entangled particles; which means an array of 2's, 4's, 6s, 8's, etc sets of particles can be arranged in rows and columns and their number mean a particular letter.

The simplest idea would seem to be an array that formed a series of binary codes.

Therefore if you set a series as ALL spin-up entangled particles as testable flags and examine 1 per hour, when you see one change state you would know you had a message and then go to the entangled array file to poll it and see which particles have changed state. That series of binary codes or in a more complex array system group numbers could represent alphanumeric characters and numbers.

2inquisitive,

The state is teleported 'instantaneously,' but you cannot choose which state the local particle will wind up in -- so you cannot transmit any information.

- Warren

This appears to be behind the times. The latest I was reading was the ability to select the entangled state as spin-up, spin-down or super position. By having a preselected state any change of state then become readable.

So you're also of the opinion that we now have superluminal communication, eh, MacM?

What you claim, the prospect of selecting the state of the particles involved in an entanglement, is impossible -- the very concept of entanglement is that of quantum superposition!

- Warren

No, I'm saying that there's no way for the remote recipient to know that the teleportation has even happened until the sender calls him on the telephone to tell him. Once again, you cannot send any information faster than light with entanglement. Period.

- Warren

Ah, but there is and that was my point about sending a series of test particles. When you seen one (I will refer to it as a messenger) of the messengers change sate you then know you have received a message and read the file.

I don't care how appeased you are. Go educate yourself.

- Warren


There you go again ch. It doesn't appear his education has any bearing on the issue.

His education is crucial to this issue -- he's misinterpreting an article from the popular press, and assuming his misinterpretation is fact. This happens all the time among laypeople. He wouldn't make such a misinterpretation if he was better educated and knew what the author of the popular article was TRYING to convey.

- Warren

Ah, but there is and that was my point about sending a series of test particles. When you seen one (I will refer to it as a messenger) of the messengers change sate you then know you have received a message and read the file.
As I've already said, you can't do this. The first time you measure the particle, you've destroyed its entanglement and, with it, the quantum communication channel. The particle does not go "ding" when a message comes in.

- Warren

I don't care how appeased you are. Go educate yourself.

- Warren

That is what I am doing. Of course, you don't need to because you already know it all. Worst case of academic arrogance I have ever seen. Did they
have to call someone before they could view this beam of light?

"Australian physicist Dr Lam, and fellow Australia National University (ANU) colleague Warwick Bowen, made their breakthrough with a beam of light in June 2002.

In their experiment, they perfected the procedure of destroying a beam of light and successfully putting it back together a metre away.

It was achieved because of a process called "entanglement", whereby two particles - in this case photons of light - have related properties even when they are far apart."
Australian physicist Dr Lam, and fellow Australia National University (ANU) colleague Warwick Bowen, made their breakthrough with a beam of light in June 2002.

In their experiment, they perfected the procedure of destroying a beam of light and successfully putting it back together a metre away.

It was achieved because of a process called "entanglement", whereby two particles - in this case photons of light - have related properties even when they are far apart."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3774369.stm

If I'm arrogant, then you're ten times worse so. You read an article from the BBC and think you know more than I about quantum mechanics!

- Warren

I certainly did not claim I knew more than you. I said you claimed you knew it all.

I've told you specifically, several times now, that what you think is possible is not. Despite your misinterpretations of BBC articles, superluminal communication via quantum entanglement is just not possible. Please do some more reading -- and not just popular articles -- before continuing to argue.

- Warren

As I've already said, you can't do this. The first time you measure the particle, you've destroyed its entanglement and, with it, the quantum communication channel. The particle does not go "ding" when a message comes in.

- Warren

You are still missing the point. Listen carefully. There is a series of continuing particles being sent as messengers. I sample one every second, or minute or hour or day. But when I sample one and see its state has changed I know to go check the message file.

So yes you are destroying the entanglement of a series of messenger particles as a means of knowing when to "One Time Only" poll the message file.

So you're also of the opinion that we now have superluminal communication, eh, MacM?

What you claim, the prospect of selecting the state of the particles involved in an entanglement, is impossible -- the very concept of entanglement is that of quantum superposition!

- Warren

Sorry to inform you CH but it has already been claimed to have been done.!! They can nw select spin-up, spin-down or super position of pairs or groups of entangled particles.

And "No" I don't think you can show anywhere that I said "We have FTL communication capabilities". What I said was it now appears we can in the future have FTL communications.

(That is assuming people stop basing their opinion on just their opinion and look at current data and use some common sense on how to apply it for that purpose).

A quality of 0.75 might be good for some things but not military strategy messges etc where 25% of the message is garbage.

You are still missing the point. Listen carefully. There is a series of continuing particles being sent as messengers. I sample one every second, or minute or hour or day. But when I sample one and see its state has changed I know to go check the message file.

So yes you are destroying the entanglement of a series of messenger particles as a means of knowing when to "One Time Only" poll the message file.
You are still missing the point. Listen carefully. You cannot poll an entangled particle -- even one in a continuing stream -- to see when it "changes." Whenever you measure it, you'll always get either spin-up or spin-down. After the first measurement, the particle will be locked into that state and will never change again. You'll never be able to know whether a) the particle was already in that state because the sender manipulated his own particle or b) your own measurement caused it to enter that state.

Futhermore, of course, the sender can't even specify which state he wants you to receive.

You really do seem to have a lot of very fundamental misunderstandings of quantum mechanics. I don't expect you to try to learn anything, however. I know I'm talking to a brick wall.

- Warren

Sorry to inform you CH but it has already been claimed to have been done.!! They can nw select spin-up, spin-down or super position of pairs or groups of entangled particles.
This doesn't even make sense. By definition, entangled particles are in a superposition of states.
And "No" I don't think you can show anywhere that I said "We have FTL communication capabilities". What I said was it now appears we can in the future have FTL communications.
More wishful thinking with absolutely zero evidence for support. Your misinterpretations of contrary evidence do not count.

- Warren

You are still missing the point. Listen carefully. You cannot poll an entangled particle -- even one in a continuing stream -- to see when it "changes." Whenever you measure it, you'll always get either spin-up or spin-down. After the first measurement, the particle will be locked into that state and will never change again. You'll never be able to know whether a) the particle was already in that state because the sender manipulated his own particle or b) your own measurement caused it to enter that state.

Thanks for your positive contribution vs your old style. Now are you saying that particles toggle, don't toggle or may or may not toggle upon being polled?

It has been my understanding their status was readable as being their state if not entangled and toggle if polled in an entangled state.

AH :o but I think I see your point. I would not know if I toggled it by polling or if I merely read a pre-toggled particle that was no longer entangled. - Yes?

Futhermore, of course, the sender can't even specify which state he wants you to receive.

This seems behind the times. They can select the state now.

They can select the state now.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe you.

I'll try to find the link to the paper.

Here is one method show for generating polarixed photons of a specific polarization
as well as controlling the frequency of the entangled photons at the same time:

Finally, it is worth noting that our source may be used to
create photon pairs that are entangled in polarization. In Fig.
1, we were only concerned with down-converted photons
polarized along the y axis. If the pump beam is polarized
along the z axis and we use a material with the symmetry
properties of GaAs which has xzxy
(2)5 xzyx
(2) and xzxx
(2)5 xzyy
(2)
50 @16#, we will get a counterpropagating polarizationentangled
state (uHV&1uVH&) directly from the crystal @20#.
Furthermore, we can obtain this polarization entanglement
while independently controlling the frequency entanglement
by manipulating the pump beam, as previously described.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation;
the Center for Subsurface Sensing and Imaging Systems
~CenSSIS!, an NSF Engineering Research Center; the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ~DARPA!; and
the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
http://people.bu.edu/teich/pdfs/PRA-67-053810-2003.pdf

Never mind, it still doesn't work for messaging.

James R.,

Right now it is getting late and I'm getting tired. This is not what i was looking for but close. SoI'll post what I have.

Session L34 - Electron Entanglement and Quantum Computation.
... for the detection of spin entanglement via noise ... In the regime of interest the particle-hole
excitations ... gradient is used to enable selective spin excitations. ...
flux.aps.org/meetings/YR01/MAR01/abs/S4440.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

(Selectiv Spin) But I don't see it discussed in the abstracts.

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~comop/pdf/nov5.pdf
(Selective Spins)


http://ics.org.ru/pubsfiles/e/408pdf.pdf
(non-destructive polling)


http://heart-c704.uibk.ac.at/RecentResults/ControlAndMeasurementE.html (group condition known - not individual but individual can be polled without destruction of group).

These tend to appear to disagree with statements about the absolute destruction of entanglement by polling and the ability to measure without loss of data.

One discusses 'reversability'.

More later

From what you just said above it seems you are saying the message can be sent FTL but the receiver doesn't know he has a message or when to check for a message. Is that correct? If so it seems Relativists are abscuring the problem by saying information can't be sent FTL. It would seem in fact that it can. Readability or receipt of such message is the current limitation.

You made the mistake I warned you for.

No there is NO information transfered when you perform the measurement of ONE of the entangled particles. You know what the outcome COULD be of an experiment IF IT WERE to be performed far away.

This is not special knowledge. I can put a bomb in a rocket, set it to 10 year, let it cruise away at sufficiently fast speed. Then I'll know that the bomb will explode in 10 years, even if we won't see that for 15 years (because the light takes that long to travel through space or something)...

There is no problem in KNOWING things. Information transfer implies a change of frame of reference.

Also, many people are confusing the use of entanglement and quantum cryptography here. In quantum cryptography, the entangled photons are sent along the data stream. A change in these photons (___not____ through measurement!!!!!!!!) reveals that the message was decoded by a third person.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

I understand the cryptography issue where a key must be sent seperate by snail mail.

But in my view the position of physicists today is incorrect. Claiming information can't be sent FTL simply doesn't seem to be consistant with fact.

To use an analogy suppose you send me a letter bomb by UPS. UPS delivers it and it sets on my desk for three days because I was out of town.

The fact that I haven't read the letter in no way supports the statement that the UPS didn't deliver the letter. Now when I attempt to open it and read it self destructs. Again that fact is entirely different than claiming I never received the letter bomb. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Do you get my point? Readability of FTL mesages is the issue, not sending messages FTL. Now I admit that sending such messages has no value until we learn to read them but I just find the arguement that they cannot be sent absolutely contrary to todays data.

I also understand the desire of Relativists to argue they can't be sent. But it is just a short term denial cover of the issue which I do believe will be solved and when it is - Oh, well.

I understand the cryptography issue where a key must be sent seperate by snail mail.

That was not the issue.

But in my view the position of physicists today is incorrect. Claiming information can't be sent FTL simply doesn't seem to be consistant with fact. [...] Do you get my point? Readability of FTL mesages is the issue, not sending messages FTL. [...] I also understand the desire of Relativists to argue they can't be sent. But it is just a short term denial cover of the issue which I do believe will be solved and when it is - Oh, well.

You did not understand. Let me say it again...

NO ... INFORMATION ... IS ... TRANSFERED when you perform a measurement on an entangled particle pair. When there is nothing to transfer, you can hardly speak about FTL I think.

You seem to think that when you measure a particle at A which is entangled with a particle at B, that something happens at B. This is not the case. Nothing happens at location B when an observer destroys the entanglement at A.

If you don't believe that, fine by me. That is what quantum mechanics tells us. Period.

Crisp,

I'll be l;ooking further into this but what you say simply does not rign true with what others seem to be saying. If that were true then the claim of "Teleportation" of particle 'A's parameters to 'B' would not happen.

I understand now, Crisp. Thanks. I at first thought that by destroying photon A
that the entangled photon B would also be destroyed, instead of just destroying
the entangled state between the two. I now don't quite understand why they are said to be entangled in the first place. They take a high energy ultra-violent photon, for
instance, and make two daughter infra-red photons, the daughter photons having the same total energy as the original photon. If nothing happens between the two daughter photons when one is measured, why are they assumed to be entangled?

I understand now, Crisp. Thanks. I at first thought that by destroying photon A
that the entangled photon B would also be destroyed, instead of just destroying
the entangled state between the two. I now don't quite understand why they are said to be entangled in the first place. They take a high energy ultra-violent photon, for
instance, and make two daughter infra-red photons, the daughter photons having the same total energy as the original photon. If nothing happens between the two daughter photons when one is measured, why are they assumed to be entangled?

As I have indicated Crisp's statements don't appear to properly define the issue. If what he claims is true then events that have been reported i.e. - teleporting change of parameters for particle 'A' to particle 'B' doesn't happen.

I agree, I just want to hear Crisp's answer.

As I have indicated Crisp's statements don't appear to properly define the issue. If what he claims is true then events that have been reported i.e. - teleporting change of parameters for particle 'A' to particle 'B' doesn't happen.

This is the kind of things that are hard to explain when you cannot use the mathematics that is behind quantum mechanics.

The teleportation of properties only happens when a measurement takes place (the collapse reduces the outcome of a possible measurement to only one possibility). This does not mean that something is there "waiting to be measured", because QM says that the particle B only takes a definite state when measured by the observer at B. It is important that you see that it is not a matter of not being able to see what is there, QM really tells you that nothing is definitly there before you measure it. (This is wavefunctions and probability theory)

Edit: added the words "by the observer at B" to indicate a measurement at a different location is required.

They take a high energy ultra-violent photon, for instance, and make two daughter infra-red photons, the daughter photons having the same total energy as the original photon. If nothing happens between the two daughter photons when one is measured, why are they assumed to be entangled?

You take the word "entangled" too seriously. They do influence eachother, but only for one observer. That is why they are called entangled.

This is the kind of things that are hard to explain when you cannot use the mathematics that is behind quantum mechanics.

The teleportation of properties only happens when a measurement takes place (the collapse reduces the outcome of a possible measurement to only one possibility). This does not mean that something is there "waiting to be measured", because QM says that the particle B only takes a definite state when measured by the observer at B. It is important that you see that it is not a matter of not being able to see what is there, QM really tells you that nothing is definitly there before you measure it. (This is wavefunctions and probability theory)

Edit: added the words "by the observer at B" to indicate a measurement at a different location is required.


The lead "bold" paragraph of the following link seems to contridict your statement that nothing happens to the other particle upon breaking the entanglement.

The fact is the other particle changes state the instant you measure one particle. The problem is then that the observer of the other particle doesn't know it has changed state until he attempts to measure his particle. Doing so he either breaks the entanglement, changing its state or is reading a changed state due to prior breakage of entanglement by the other observer.

He would know it changed state but not know if he caused it or if it was a message.

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/3/9/1

An inability to read a message is not the same arguement that messages were not or can not be sent. Frankly it seems Relativity is hiding behind the skirts of some little old ladies.

The lead "bold" paragraph of the following link seems to contridict your statement that nothing happens to the other particle upon breaking the entanglement.

I think it actually supports that statement.

The fact is the other particle changes state the instant you measure one particle. The problem is then that the observer of the other particle doesn't know it has changed state until he attempts to measure his particle.

Isn't this exactly what I have been trying to tell you for 10 posts already ?

Doing so he either breaks the entanglement, changing its state or is reading a changed state due to prior breakage of entanglement by the other observer.

All three at once actually.

He would know it changed state but not know if he caused it or if it was a message.

Exactly! Do you agree now that it is impossible to transfer information using entanglement alone ?

I am surprised that you argued towards the opposite statement for 10 posts, read some physicsweb article and now are ready to take the words of chroot, James, ... and me seriously. You should take into account that some of the people participating in this thread could have written the very same article ;).

An inability to read a message is not the same arguement that messages were not or can not be sent. Frankly it seems Relativity is hiding behind the skirts of some little old ladies.

Relativity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics and the other way around. They are not incompatible however.

Quantum mechanics does not say that the message cannot be read. It says that there is no information at all for the other observer.

Let me try to explain using an example. I am afraid that it will be totally over your head, but I'll try anyway. You know (or you will now learn) that quantum mechanics allows a system to be in more states at once (superposition). If you take two spin 1/2 particles, you have 4 distinguishable states

|++> , |+-> , |-+> , |-->

where + represents spin up and - spin down, and where the first + or - refers to the first particle and the second to the second particle. The entangled state par excellence in this example is that you put the two particles next to eachother, and prepare them in the state

sqrt(2)^-1 |+-> + sqrt(2)^-1|-+>

which means that if you were to measure the system, you would have probability 1/2 to measure both spins in the state |+-> (i.e. the first spin up, the second down) and probability 1/2 to measure them in state |-+> (i.e. the first spin down and the second up). There is no other possible outcome for a measurement.

Now we seperate both particles. This does not influence the spin-state that I described above, so after the particles have been seperated 5 lightyears (one particle here on earth, one on alpha centauri), we can now perform the measurement back on earth. What can happen ?

- Either we measure OUR particle to be UP. Since the initial state consisted of |+-> and |-+>, the only state compatible with our UP measurement is the first. Hence, we know that the system, after the measurement, is in the state |+->.

- Or we measure OUR particle to be DOWN, which means that the system after the measurement is in the state |-+>.

At that moment, when WE here on EARTH perform the measurement, we instantly know something about alpha centauri at the same time. If we got + here, then we know that the particle on alpha centauri must be in the state - (or if we measured -, we know that the other particle is in the state -).

That's it. There is nothing more to entanglement. We learn instant information about alpha centauri, but the observer on alpha centauri knows nothing. At best, he can also perform the measurement himself to indeed verify that the system was in the state - (if we measured +) or + (if we measured -).

Some people claim that it is a problem that we "instantly know something" about alpha centauri. That is not a problem (no real information is transfered, information is inferred), it is consistent with the subluminal information speed as imposed by relativity.

Furthermore, you cannot use it to transport information: entanglement only works because you are in a superposition of two very nicely distinguishable states. Because you are in a superposition, you cannot "steer" the measurement towards one result -- the final outcome is beyond your control. At most you can reconfigure the initial state such that one outcome (e.g. the state |+-> ) is more probable when measuring, but that is completely useless since the seperation of the particles still needs to occur at subluminal speeds.

In the previous story you can replace "spin" by "photon" and up/down by the two polarisations to get the experimental reports you read on the web everywhere.

I hope this clarifies that:
- Entanglement cannot be used to transfer information.
- Since no information is transfered, no problem occurs with relativity.
- It is not a problem of "concealed" information.

Bye!

Crisp

Thanks for the reply. But I don't think it actually resolves the issue. That depends on the veracity of the claims that others have now developed the process so as to be able to select the state of entanglement created.

Which they have indeed claimed.

That depends on the veracity of the claims that others have now developed the process so as to be able to select the state of entanglement created.

The state of entanglement is the superposition I listed (which is a perfectly valid state of the system).

The state of entanglement is the superposition I listed (which is a perfectly valid state of the system).

You listed available states of entanglement; which until late were not controllable but the same article states that the technique has been used by several to "Select" ALL up (0's) or ALL down (1's) entanglements. So the states are known, hence a known configuration of particle states can be established.

i.e. - seperate a series of all up (0's) entangled pairs. Once seperated you can now selectively break the entanglement creating a binary chain of 0's and 1's. Information HAS been sent FTL. The fact that you can't read it doesn't alter the fact that it was sent.

Crisp,

Are you familiar with the "Protective Measurement" research funded by the NIAC?

You listed available states of entanglement; which until late were not controllable but the same article states that the technique has been used by several to "Select" ALL up (0's) or ALL down (1's) entanglements. So the states are known, hence a known configuration of particle states can be established.

The same article is very vulgarising, don't rely too much on it. In the example I gave, you could just as well have used the |++> + |--> state. The answer is exactly the same.

You can even use the |++> or |--> state alone, but that is a trivial situation.

Information HAS been sent FTL. The fact that you can't read it doesn't alter the fact that it was sent.

Okay, you have said it 200 times already, and you have still have nothing to support that claim. Show me WHERE it says that entanglement was used to transfer information. Do not show me some crackpot site.

With Quantum Physics 101 math, layed out above, you can show that it is not possible to send information using entanglement. You can show that anything that happens is NOT faster than light. I would be very surprised that you can find a serious article which claims the opposite. I think you just didn't understand the example (and to be honest, I think you can only really understand it if you took quantum mechanics) and already have in your head that we are wrong again, just like all the relativity crap. This is not the right attitude to discuss with people who know what they are talking about Mac, it just pisses people off.

Crisp,

With Quantum Physics 101 math, layed out above, you can show that it is not possible to send information using entanglement. You can show that anything that happens is NOT faster than light. I would be very surprised that you can find a serious article which claims the opposite. I think you just didn't understand the example (and to be honest, I think you can only really understand it if you took quantum mechanics) and already have in your head that we are wrong again, just like all the relativity crap. This is not the right attitude to discuss with people who know what they are talking about Mac, it just pisses people off.

If you feel I have stated that FTL communication has been done then you are mis-interpreting my posts. I am asking that you and others clarify in logical ways why it cannot.

I understand it is easier to simply say that it can't but since entanglement is now selective (known conditions can be established) and those conditions can be changed and the change forwarded FTL to remote entangled particles; how can one claim the message (information) was not sent?

Granted it hasn't been read and today we don't know how to read it but as I have said that is a different arguement than saying it hasn't and can't be sent.

Further you didn't respond to my last message regarding "Protective Measurements" research. (I hope you don't consider NIAC to be crackpot).

Nor the fact that there are many qualified researchers in the field that disagree with the abolute position you represent that such technology is impossible. It is not just "Crackpot MacM" saying something and there is not supporting qualified scientific basis for it.

These experiments are about methods to protect entangled particles eigenstates from having their wave function collapsed when being monitored.

The plan is to use such techniques to simply modulate entangled particles and not alter the spin, etc, and monitor such modulation at the entangled particle without breaking the entanglement.

I am merely trying to get some comparitive basis between your (and others here) pessimistic attitude in comparison to other more optimistic scientist views.

If you feel I have stated that FTL communication has been done then you are mis-interpreting my posts.

I quote you from a few posts earlier:

"Once seperated you can now selectively break the entanglement creating a binary chain of 0's and 1's. Information HAS been sent FTL. The fact that you can't read it doesn't alter the fact that it was sent."

What part about "information HAS been sent FTL" does not say that it hasn't been done according to you ?

Are you playing your "let's annoy those darn scientists" game again Mac ? This time I won't let you take it far.

I am asking that you and others clarify in logical ways why it cannot.

It was explained to you logically earlier. The fact that you do not understand does not undo the fact that it cannot be done. If you want to learn the precise why's and how's, then you'll need to learn quantum mechanics, there is no "version in words" other than the one I gave you already. We can keep going over and over this again, but you haven't got the faintest idea of how measurements are even implemented in quantum mechanics.

Look Mac, I hate to sway around with diplomas and credentials, but I can assure you that I know how quantum mechanics works. You don't have to try to mother me by saying "yeah yeah, but I read somewhere that this or that" if you have hardly any clue of what it is about. You are defending something you barely understand against someone who knows that what you are using as an argument is simply not reflecting your own opinion.

I understand it is easier to simply say that it can't but since entanglement is now selective (known conditions can be established) and those conditions can be changed and the change forwarded FTL to remote entangled particles; how can one claim the message (information) was not sent?

You do not understand what is going on. No information is sent. You think there is, but there is not. The problem is that you do not have any experience in quantum mechanics, where things can be in superpositions, spread out non-locally etc etc... You assume that the classical vision on the world that you have also works quantum mechanically. That is not true for relativity (where you also struggle with) and it surely isn't true for quantum mechanics.

You assume that because for one observer there is something like a collapse for the wavefunction, that this is also true for another observer. This is not the case in any post-Newtonian physical theory -- there is no absolute underlying reality, also not in quantum mechanics. You have to let that idea go to understand quantum mechanics but since you are already having such a bad time with relativity, I think this is beyond your reach at the moment.

Granted it hasn't been read and today we don't know how to read it but as I have said that is a different arguement than saying it hasn't and can't be sent.

Mac, for the last time... THERE IS NOTHING TO READ FOR ANOTHER OBSERVER WHEN YOU PERFORM A MEASUREMENT.

Nor the fact that there are many qualified researchers in the field that disagree with the abolute position you represent that such technology is impossible. It is not just "Crackpot MacM" saying something and there is not supporting qualified scientific basis for it.

No, this time it is Crackpot MacM repeating the wrongly interpreted words of someone else... I also note that you are still to provide a reference where it says "information can be transported faster than light using entanglement".

I am sure that you cannot provide any. You just read some article on some site that wants to make science accessible to people, got the idea that entanglement transfers information FTL in your head, and nobody will succeed in talking it out of your head. I am asking you now to provide a reference or a calculation which supports your claims. If you cannot provide any, shut up, and accept that it is above your head.

I am merely trying to get some comparitive basis between your (and others here) pessimistic attitude in comparison to other more optimistic scientist views.

What you are doing is testing other people's patience. And you're nearing the end of mine... AGAIN.

I quote you from a few posts earlier:

What part about "information HAS been sent FTL" does not say that it hasn't been done according to you ?

I am speaking hypothetically based on claims of others in the field.

Are you playing your "let's annoy those darn scientists" game again Mac ? This time I won't let you take it far.

It was explained to you logically earlier. The fact that you do not understand does not undo the fact that it cannot be done. If you want to learn the precise why's and how's, then you'll need to learn quantum mechanics, there is no "version in words" other than the one I gave you already. We can keep going over and over this again, but you haven't got the faintest idea of how measurements are even implemented in quantum mechanics.

Perhaps you might try reading the NIAC sponsored research by Aharanov, Anandan & Vaidman, regarding their work on non-detructive measurements entitled "Protective Measurement". It is their claim that it should be possible to signal and read changes (Modulations) via entangled particles which do not require a collapse of the entanglement.

Look Mac, I hate to sway around with diplomas and credentials, but I can assure you that I know how quantum mechanics works. You don't have to try to mother me by saying "yeah yeah, but I read somewhere that this or that" if you have hardly any clue of what it is about. You are defending something you barely understand against someone who knows that what you are using as an argument is simply not reflecting your own opinion.

Look, I am not challenging your education. I do question your open mindedness a to some of what is being done in the field. It is as though you have taken intitial findings and cast them in stone and are not interested or aware of some of the recent breakthroughs and what they might mean.

You assume that because for one observer there is something like a collapse for the wavefunction, that this is also true for another observer. This is not the case in any post-Newtonian physical theory -- there is no absolute underlying reality, also not in quantum mechanics. You have to let that idea go to understand quantum mechanics but since you are already having such a bad time with relativity, I think this is beyond your reach at the moment.

Your assumptions about my understandings of Relativity are tainted by the fact that I have given this forum some heartburn on the subject. :D

Mac, for the last time... THERE IS NOTHING TO READ FOR ANOTHER OBSERVER WHEN YOU PERFORM A MEASUREMENT.

So why do you suppose many $$$$ and manhours are being dedicated to cracking the issue. If it is impossible shouldn't they admit it and stop wasting time but do something more productive? It all suggest to me that you are clinging to hope that it can't be done so that Relativity doesn't come into conflict.

No, this time it is Crackpot MacM repeating the wrongly interpreted words of someone else... I also note that you are still to provide a reference where it says "information can be transported faster than light using entanglement".

Again I haven't actually claimed that. You are taking hypothetical projections
based on recent changes as meaning others have claimed it. I haven't either.

I am sure that you cannot provide any. You just read some article on some site that wants to make science accessible to people, got the idea that entanglement transfers information FTL in your head, and nobody will succeed in talking it out of your head. I am asking you now to provide a reference or a calculation which supports your claims. If you cannot provide any, shut up, and accept that it is above your head.

Suppose instead you comment on the NIAC information I mentioned. It is not up to me to prove you wrong but up to you to prove you are right.

What you are doing is testing other people's patience. And you're nearing the end of mine... AGAIN.

Sorry about that but suppose you make direct comparisons of information you claim I have mis-interpreted rather than simply making such statements.

MacM:

Stop waffling, and provide a direct reference for your claims, please.

If you think that somebody has transmitted information FTL using quantum entanglement, quote your source. And don't just link to a 20 page article and expect me to sift through it to find where you've misunderstood. Make sure you provide a precise page reference to the part which supports your claim.

Thankyou.

MacM:

Stop waffling, and provide a direct reference for your claims, please.

If you think that somebody has transmitted information FTL using quantum entanglement, quote your source. And don't just link to a 20 page article and expect me to sift through it to find where you've misunderstood. Make sure you provide a precise page reference to the part which supports your claim.

Thankyou.

Nobody has waffled here James R., I have already explained to Crisp the meaning of my posts. I do not claim FTL communication has been achieved. I do claim He (and others here) are far to absolute in your opinion against it, at least according to those working in that field.

They seem to believe that is is going to be achieved and are working toward that end.

There was one case where researchers have claimed to have transmitted a "Mozart" sympanthy at 4.7 'c' via quantum tunneling (11.3 cm). I'll see if I can find it again but to my knowledge that has not been verified and could well be "Cold Fusion" all over again.

Found it:
************************************************
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#11
11. Quantum Tunnelling
Quantum Tunnelling is the quantum mechanical effect which permits a particle to escape through a barrier when it does not have enough energy to do so classically. You can do a calculation of the time it takes a particle to tunnel through. The answer you get can come out less than the time it takes light to cover the distance at speed c. Does this provide a means of FTL communication?
ref:T. E. Hartman, J. Appl. Phys. 33, 3427 (1962).

The answer must surely be "No!" otherwise our understanding of QED is very suspect. Yet a group of physicists have performed experiments which seem to suggest that FTL communication by quantum tunneling is possible. They claim to have transmitted Mozart's 40th Symphony through a barrier 11.4cm wide at a speed of 4.7c. Their interpretation is, of course, very controversial. Most physicists say this is a quantum effect where no information can actually be passed at FTL speeds because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If the effect is real it is difficult to see why it should not be possible to transmit signals into the past by placing the apparatus in a fast moving frame of reference.
ref:
W. Heitmann and G. Nimtz, Phys Lett A196, 154 (1994);
A. Enders and G. Nimtz, Phys Rev E48, 632 (1993).
************************************************** **

Now before you say something about tunneling is not entanglement. I know that but the issue is "The impossability" of FTL communication.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the NAIC sponsored research "Protective Measurement" process. Or do you also consider the NAIC to be crackpot?

I am speaking hypothetically based on claims of others in the field.
Again I haven't actually claimed that. You are taking hypothetical projections based on recent changes as meaning others have claimed it. I haven't either.

Bullshit, you jumped on the FTL claim like you do on many other claims, and you are now crawling back. You know damn well that what you meant to say is exactly there "FTL has been done using entanglement". It is now because you cannot provide any reference to your claim that you are backing out.

This hypothetical crap and "oh, I didn't mean that when I used a declarative syntax" is just hilarious. Just admit that you are crawling back because you can feel the heat.

Perhaps you might try reading the NIAC sponsored research by Aharanov, Anandan & Vaidman, regarding their work on non-detructive measurements entitled "Protective Measurement". It is their claim that it should be possible to signal and read changes (Modulations) via entangled particles which do not require a collapse of the entanglement.

You haven't got the FAINTEST idea of what you are talking about. Aharanov follows an interpretation of quantum mechanics called "Bohmian" mechanics (Aharanov and Bohm dit quite some work together). In this interpretation, there is no such thing as the collapse of the wavefunction.

That explains why there is no destruction of the entanglement. But this is stuff that is surely above your head.

Look, I am not challenging your education. I do question your open mindedness a to some of what is being done in the field. It is as though you have taken intitial findings and cast them in stone and are not interested or aware of some of the recent breakthroughs and what they might mean.

I am very much aware of recent break throughs in quantum mechanics. I do research in it for, do you think that we just read some stuff from 1920 and work further onto that ?!?

This has nothing to do with open-mindness, but with the fact that you are using results in a wrong way. Within quantum mechanics, it simply is impossible to transfer information using entanglement. Period. Until a radically new theory is discovered, it will remain that way. Even you should be able to see that from what has been said already (and that you cannot exclude superpositions in a "wave"-description of nature).

Your assumptions about my understandings of Relativity are tainted by the fact that I have given this forum some heartburn on the subject. :D

You think much of yourself.

It all suggest to me that you are clinging to hope that it can't be done so that Relativity doesn't come into conflict.

... yeah, the conspiracy theory again. I should have known :rolleyes:. I mentioned already that there is not a word of relativity in quantum mechanics. Yet you try to drag it in again. Perhaps it is you ?

Suppose instead you comment on the NIAC information I mentioned. It is not up to me to prove you wrong but up to you to prove you are right.

I did prove that I am right. Remember the example of the spins ? Not sufficient ? Not happy ? Considered studying quantum mechanics so I can go into the technical details ?

What good is me proving anything if you won't understand ? Have you picked up a book on "Entanglement for Dummies" (they exist) already ? No ? Is that my fault ? Do I have to solve that problem for you ? No fucking way.


I think I learned a good lesson ... again. We have a saying over here, "you cannot teach an old fox new tricks". Very applicable.

There was one case where researchers have claimed to have transmitted a "Mozart" sympanthy at 4.7 'c' via quantum tunneling (11.3 cm). I'll see if I can find it again but to my knowledge that has not been verified and could well be "Cold Fusion" all over again.

Don't try to weasle out of it by introducing quantum tunneling, which is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT effect.

As James said, provide an exact reference for your claim or shut up. Since it seems you are no longer supporting, this entire thread has become quite useless actually. What a shame of all the time that was put into it.

Bullshit, you jumped on the FTL claim like you do on many other claims, and you are now crawling back. You know damn well that what you meant to say is exactly there "FTL has been done using entanglement". It is now because you cannot provide any reference to your claim that you are backing out.

I love the way these issues are reduced to attacking the messenger rather than addressisng the issues raised. Once again it seems more than fool hardy to think so many researchers (highly qualified and as much if not more knowlegable than yourself) are expending so much time trying to achieve the impossible and talk in terms of the ultimate goal of FTL communications.

This hypothetical crap and "oh, I didn't mean that when I used a declarative syntax" is just hilarious. Just admit that you are crawling back because you can feel the heat.

I don't crawl for you or anyone. My position stands. You are far to absolute in your statements aboute QM and FTL possibilities as is indicated by the on going research. They are not fools which they surely would be if your claims were even 1% accurate.

You haven't got the FAINTEST idea of what you are talking about. Aharanov follows an interpretation of quantum mechanics called "Bohmian" mechanics (Aharanov and Bohm dit quite some work together). In this interpretation, there is no such thing as the collapse of the wavefunction.

That explains why there is no destruction of the entanglement. But this is stuff that is surely above your head.

And apparently yours since you didn't seem to care to comment on their work. If their work and the sponsorship of the NAIC is legitimate then your claims are as I have said Bullshit and FTL is considered a possibility by serious scientist.

I am very much aware of recent break throughs in quantum mechanics. I do research in it for, do you think that we just read some stuff from 1920 and work further onto that ?!?

This has nothing to do with open-mindness, but with the fact that you are using results in a wrong way. Within quantum mechanics, it simply is impossible to transfer information using entanglement. Period. Until a radically new theory is discovered, it will remain that way. Even you should be able to see that from what has been said already (and that you cannot exclude superpositions in a "wave"-description of nature).

So you deny the claims of those that say they can select the entagled condition?

You think much of yourself.

No but surely more than you. :D

... yeah, the conspiracy theory again. I should have known :rolleyes:. I mentioned already that there is not a word of relativity in quantum mechanics. Yet you try to drag it in again. Perhaps it is you ?

Your comment suggests (as should be expected) the opposite meaning of the inclusion of Relativity into the discussion. We understand that Relativity and QM don't merge harmoniously and that any such findings in QM would destroy Relativity. It isn't a conspiracy but close mindedness regarding the falicy of Relativity by those so blinded by its complexiety.

I did prove that I am right. Remember the example of the spins ? Not sufficient ? Not happy ? Considered studying quantum mechanics so I can go into the technical details ?

What good is me proving anything if you won't understand ? Have you picked up a book on "Entanglement for Dummies" (they exist) already ? No ? Is that my fault ? Do I have to solve that problem for you ? No fucking way.

Have you addressed these issues in any technical way other than to attack my presentation of what others are saying.? No. Wonder why that might be.

I think I learned a good lesson ... again. We have a saying over here, "you cannot teach an old fox new tricks". Very applicable.

Perhaps it is not tricks that we should be trying to teach, eh?

Don't try to weasle out of it by introducing quantum tunneling, which is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT effect.

As James said, provide an exact reference for your claim or shut up. Since it seems you are no longer supporting, this entire thread has become quite useless actually. What a shame of all the time that was put into it.

As I expected (and made every effort to avoid) you are attacking the difference between entanglement and tunneling. Lets try responding to the point of the post which is the conflict between your stated position on FTL communications and the claims of researchers in the field of study, shall we.

I think that would be far more productive don't you. You see if you are wrong about FTL communication being impossible then if this research result is verified the only conclusion is that you are mis-interpreting QM and hence the capacity for FTL communication by entanglement as well.

Please give us your appraisal of the "Mozart" transmission at 4.7 c.

You see this issue really is not between some ignorant old fox and some young know it all whippersnapper. It seems more to be between two camps of science those that hold Relativity on a pedestal and those that see through and around it and what its actual benefits and limitations are.

Fortunately there are those (including me) that really care less about if Relativity is correct or not and continue to do basic research and advance science rather than claim this or that is a waste of time because Relativity says so. That attitude is the waster of time believe me.

My statements are about the claims of other scientist and not about my own personal detailed knowledge on this issue. Perhaps you can provide us with something more than lip service in responding to the claims of such scientists.

Either show they are clearly wrong or admit you may not be absolutely right and also hence mistaken about my posts. Thank you.

Either show they are clearly wrong or admit you may not be absolutely right and also hence mistaken about my posts. Thank you.

You are an idiot. Thank you, I am outta here. Good bye y'all.

You are an idiot. Thank you, I am outta here. Good bye y'all.

I would take it that means you really can't respond at a technical level to refute these other scientists. That attacking me is the limit of your expertise.

Mac,

Did you even bother to read your own references?

"In quantum field theory forces are mediated by virtual particles. Because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle these virtual particles are allowed to go faster than light. However, virtual particles are not called "virtual" for nothing. They are only part of a convenient mathematical notation. Once again, no real FTL travel or communication is possible." (emphasis mine)

"The answer must surely be "No!" otherwise our understanding of QED is very suspect."

"Their interpretation is, of course, very controversial. Most physicists say this is a quantum effect where no information can actually be passed at FTL speeds because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle."

"Although this is not what is being done in the above experiments it does illustrate that they will have to use a much higher frequency random signal or transmit over much larger distances if they are to convincingly demonstrate FTL information transfer."

"The likely conclusion is that there is no real FTL communication taking place and that the effect is another manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle."

~Raithere

I would take it that means you really can't respond at a technical level to refute these other scientists. That attacking me is the limit of your expertise.

Yes Mac, that is exactly it. I confess, I am your technical inferior. All this time it was *I* who was bullshitting.

You are so incredibly childish. Let me summarize this thread:

(after 2inquisitive posted)
You: "Excellent, then we can use entanglement to transfer information".
Me: "No you can't"
You: "Oh yes you can".
Me: "No. You cannot."
You: "You are incorrect, I have a dozen of references here"
Me: "Those references are not in favour of you."
You: "Oh yes they are; you are not open minded crisp"
Me: "(Technical explanation)"
Me: "Hence you cannot transfer information using entanglement, surely not FTL"
You: "Oh, but there is this research group somewhere at..."
Me: "(explains that this group has a quite peculiar vision)"
You: "No crisp, you are wrong, you know shit about entanglement"
Me: gives up.

That is how about every thread with you goes. Ever noticed that some threads are really constructive ? Of course not, because those are the threads that you are not participating in.

Yes, there is a reason why I attack you, that is because you are a stubborn idiot who thinks he has invented the next best thing to warm water. The fact that you pretend to know about physics is an insult to those that really do. And the fact that you always keep throwing references at us until you find one that remotely *perhaps*, but unlickely, has something to do with your extraordinary claims, is not the proper way of getting a constructive dialog going. And the fact that you always claim victory after the other person has long given up after having explained a dozen times that yet another reference you have thrown at us is not applicable, is simply ridiculous.

You are YET to provide a reference for all the claims that you have posted in this thread. The group around Aharanov is *NOT* saying what you think they are saying (believe me, I know because I am familiar with Aharanov's work).

And it took us 5 fucking pages and 200 posts to finally conclude that you have contributed nada to the discussion, aside from evading a call for references, dragging in unrelated side-discussions (tunneling??), and when you do finally provide a reference, it is simply not applicable and even plain contradictory to your claims.

Mac, you can say what you want. You are a fucking moron. Anybody with even a remote understanding of physics, or anybody who followed any discussion of you here agrees (at least some do it publicly). I said it three times already, but this time is final: with your attitude of deception and derailing threads a discussion is impossible and I will no longer engage into one with you. As a matter of fact, I will avoid ANY thread that you are participating in, since it can only be full of the crap that you usually post. There is a word for that in the internet community, it is called "trolling". Congrats, you have just joined Paul Dixon on the official list of "sciforums.com" cranky old fools. Goodbye.

Oh BTW, James, do us all a favor and close this thread... nothing productive is going to come from it anymore.

You should probably wait until after Mac has posted yet another "Crisp you are a fucking retarded idiot" reply (his usual approach after being overclassed)... Yeah, I'll even honour him by giving him the opportunity to answer my post, as it will only strengthen my argument.

Mac,

Did you even bother to read your own references?

"In quantum field theory forces are mediated by virtual particles. Because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle these virtual particles are allowed to go faster than light. However, virtual particles are not called "virtual" for nothing. They are only part of a convenient mathematical notation. Once again, no real FTL travel or communication is possible." (emphasis mine)

"The answer must surely be "No!" otherwise our understanding of QED is very suspect."

"Their interpretation is, of course, very controversial. Most physicists say this is a quantum effect where no information can actually be passed at FTL speeds because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle."

"Although this is not what is being done in the above experiments it does illustrate that they will have to use a much higher frequency random signal or transmit over much larger distances if they are to convincingly demonstrate FTL information transfer."

Of course I read it but it is not unlike the responses here (only a bit more formal) which are to give negative lip service without any attempt to duplicate or verify the scientist claim about the Mozart transmission.

Please note by their own admission their negative reply doesn't refer to the experiment as conducted nor do they come to some absolute conclusion as members here seem to want to imply!!!.

"The likely conclusion is that there is no real FTL communication taking place and that the effect is another manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle."

Negative statements referring to aspects of QM that are not involved with the experiment and including terms like "Most" and "Likely" are hardly adequate responses to refute such claims.

If the experiment can't be duplicated and/or they can show some other cause then that would be an appropriate response.

Second guessing based on assumptions relying on a belief system simply don't make good science.

...guessing based on assumptions relying on a belief system simply don't make good science.Ahem. Indeed.

It seems to me that it is a bit premature to leap from 'there might possibly be some evidence for FTL comm. but it has yet to be verified' to asserting that "relativists" are all just naysayers locked in their conservative beliefs and denying proof. One does not go altering core principles of physics every time someone thinks they might have proof. I seem to recall quite a lot of press about a supposedly successful cold-fusion experiment a few years ago, for instance.

~Raithere

Ahem. Indeed.

It seems to me that it is a bit premature to leap from 'there might possibly be some evidence for FTL comm. but it has yet to be verified' to asserting that "relativists" are all just naysayers locked in their conservative beliefs and denying proof. One does not go altering core principles of physics every time someone thinks they might have proof. I seem to recall quite a lot of press about a supposedly successful cold-fusion experiment a few years ago, for instance.

~Raithere


I do agree BTW. However, my posts are directed at the opposite tendacy of some here to simply phoo-phoo the possibiity with absolute statements, in total disregard of what other scientist are saying and combined with denograting comments about MacM's knowledge or understandings and/or misinterpretation of what some papers are claiming. All withou actually responding directly to the claim of the scientists.

The following is a pefect example. Written by a physicists. He is quite clear on the situation (the Mozart 4.7 c transmission) and is more intune with what my view of science should be, not what is a typical response here.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw75.html

Yes Mac, that is exactly it. I confess, I am your technical inferior. All this time it was *I* who was bullshitting.

If you actually cared to look at my post I did not compare you with myself but other scientists.

My, my some people like to dish out the dirt but don't want any back in their eyes. You don't want dirt in your eyes then don't throw dirt.

You are so incredibly childish. Let me summarize this thread:

(after 2inquisitive posted)
You: "Excellent, then we can use entanglement to transfer information".
Me: "No you can't"
You: "Oh yes you can".
Me: "No. You cannot."
You: "You are incorrect, I have a dozen of references here"
Me: "Those references are not in favour of you."
You: "Oh yes they are; you are not open minded crisp"
Me: "(Technical explanation)"
Me: "Hence you cannot transfer information using entanglement, surely not FTL"
You: "Oh, but there is this research group somewhere at..."
Me: "(explains that this group has a quite peculiar vision)"
You: "No crisp, you are wrong, you know shit about entanglement"
Me: gives up.

That is how about every thread with you goes. Ever noticed that some threads are really constructive ? Of course not, because those are the threads that you are not participating in.

Ever notice that rarely (only sometimes) do members here actually address the issue but want to avoid it by ignoring the material and attacking the messenger.

See my response to Raithere below for an example.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw75.html

Suppose you learn to think (and talk like) Physicists J.G. Cramer. Then perhaps some of these topics could be interesting and educational. All the BS about MacM's knowledge, understanding, etc, etc, is BS and totally off the subject.

Yes, there is a reason why I attack you, that is because you are a stubborn idiot who thinks he has invented the next best thing to warm water.<