OT: Christian relativity - in which I mangle philosophyof science

Stanislaus · 01 May 2006, 02:16 · from 2006-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: sbocian at poczta.fm (Stanislaus)
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 04:16:22 +0200
Subject: (urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I mangle
	philosophyof science
In-Reply-To: <1f7617370604261059g612c8b0fs6fdf781911f6bef1 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <1f7617370604250841o36708b85na75cc2081ca8ee74 at mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY114-F35A78A8D7AA8C82DE6E07EB9BC0 at phx.gbl>
	<1f7617370604261059g612c8b0fs6fdf781911f6bef1 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <142283657.20060501041622 at poczta.fm>

Hello Dan'l,

Wednesday, April 26, 2006, 7:59:59 PM, you wrote:

> On 4/26/06, Iorwerth Thomas <iorweththomas at hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Well, Bell's inequality is a property (as far as I know; I'm a
>> computational field theorist turned condensed matter theorist who
>> needs to bone up on his foundations)

I'm a lawyer, so my explanation can be a bit flawed.

>> The degree to which Bell's inequalities affect relativistic causality is
>> somewhat up in the air, because you can't transmit information
>> faster than light,

> Ummm ... I have this idea that you can, by exploiting exclusion.

> Consider three points, A, B, and C. B is between A and C,
> but one light-microsecond closer to A. B emits photon-pairs
> towards both A and C, at regular intervals.

> At C, you set up a device to detect photons coming from B as
> waves.

> At A, I measure every other (odd-numbered) photon as a particle. If
> I'm understanding exclusion and the inequality correctly, this means
> that you can't measure these photons as waves, so your wave-
> measuring doodad misses every odd-numbered photon, which gives
> us a kind of synchronization. Then I measure the even-numbered
> photons as waves for 1 and as particles for 0. You will only be able
> to detect the ones paired to the ones I measure as waves. So no
> matter how far A and C are from each other, the information I
> encode in this way will reach you in one microsecond.

> True? False? I'm not sure -- I don't have the maths to understand
> why I'm wrong, if I am.

Some variation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen conception? You can measure
any photon as wave. The problem is, if an entangled photon has been
measured before, it will change - statistically - the results of the
measuring of the second photon. But the problem is that you will know
what the results should be when you get the results of the first
measurement.

So you can transmit information quicker than light - but you cannot
decode it.


-- 
Best regards,
 Stanislaus                           mailto:sbocian at poczta.fm


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poznaj Stefana! Zmien komunikator! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1924

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net