A Model For Eliminating / Confirming Time Dialation

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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!!!.

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

Do I see jealousy creeping in here regards UniKEF?

So refute Mr Cramer. I guess he is an idiot also. Is it your understanding anybody, even physicists, that disagree with you, do not understand Relativity, QM or anyother subject.? You will learn (hopefully not to late in your life) that you are not the holder of absolute truth. You, in my opinion, may have a lot to offer the physics world if you only learn to be a bit more flexiable and stop denying achievements of others because they don't set well with your agenda.

Fine then explain how proposing to send signals along a particle entangled net without collapsing the entanglement, isn't what it appears to be and in keeping with their stated efforts doesn't mean they are attempting to find a way of FTL communication. Attacking me doesn't respond to the issue.

Now, now. Lets see what you and others have contributed other than to simply state "It isn't true", "It can't be done", "You don't understand".

Bubba Mr J.C.G.Cramer, physicist, makes the point in "Plain" english. Please address him not me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Gee, seems Crisp (perhaps others) don't really like trying to answering questions where their understanding may not be supported.

 

You do as you see fit James R., but to me the problem is not my postings but the unresponsive BS, we are getting back.

I question if that proves to be true. Don't you.

PS: I don't attack people until they repeatedly attack me. You don't like dirt in your eyes then don't throw dirt.

 

Of course. But surely you noticed since I made it red, that it starts "MOST" and admits that the issue they raise is not at issue in the experiment?. They conclude with "It is "Likely", hardly an appropriate refutation of the claim.

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

My error. Thought I had corrected it. I will correct it above. Thanks.

 

Here is a an article by John Gribbon that is a pretty good overview of some of the
more, shall we say, 'curious' aspects of quantum mechanics, including references to
John Cramer's work. Here is an excerpt on quantum tunneling:

"Nothing can travel faster than light -- unless it is a quantum particle "tunneling" through a barrier that, according to good old Newtonian physics, it should not be able to penetrate at all. Physicists have puzzled for decades over how long this mysterious tunneling process takes, but they need puzzle now longer, for it has been measured. And, sure enough, it takes place faster than light.

Quantum tunneling is of more than just esoteric interest. The phenomenon is related to quantum uncertainty, and to wave-particle duality. When two quantum particles, such as two protons, come close to one another, but do not actually touch, the uncertainty in their positions allows their quantum waves to overlap to some extent. As a result, they may "tunnel through" the gap between them, and interact. This is exactly what happens inside the Sun and stars -- protons which are kept at a distance from one another by the repulsion of their positive charge can still fuse together because of tunneling. And that nuclear fusion is what keeps the interior of the Sun hot, and makes its surface shine. Without tunneling, we would not be here.

Raymond Chaio, of the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues have actually been measuring a different, but related, kind of tunneling. They have devised an experiment in which two photons (particles of light) are produced simultaneously in a source, and travel on parallel paths. One photon goes straight to a detector; the other is confronted by a barrier which would reflect the light of the photons obeyed the laws of classical, "Newtonian" physics. But according to quantum theory there is a high probability that some of the photons arriving at the mirror will tunnel straight through, and go on their way to the detector.

Sure enough, that is what happens. The barrier is 1.1 micrometers thick, so anything travelling through it at the speed of light would take 3.6 femtoseconds (3.6 thousand million millionths of a second) on the journey. But the new experiment is so sophisticated that it can compare the arrival times of pairs of photons, one of which has gone past the barrier and one through it, and shows that the one which goes through the barrier arrives first. It tunnelled through the barrier faster than the speed of light, in less than 3.6 femtoseconds. As the researchers put it, "it is as though the particle 'skipped' the bulk of the barrier". But don't ask them, or anyone else, what it means -- in the words of Richard Feynman, "nobody understands quantum mechanics".
http://epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm#More_atoms