Re: Quantum Entanglement and FTL information transfer

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:46:10 GMT

"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qILvc.4791$rn1.3841@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:wOCvc.3766$rz4.2033@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > The double slit experiment has been performed many times and found in
> every
> > case to conform to standard QM see
> >
>
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/1.http://physicsweb.org/box/world/15/9/1/bologna-image
>
> Great article. This link has pictures taken directly from a monitor of the
> Bologna experiment:
> http://physicsweb.org/box/world/15/9/1/bologna-image
>
> The Hitachi experiment is more sensitive and shows more electrons
> http://physicsweb.org/box/world/15/9/1/single-electron-image
>
> The experiments I did was not to seek interference patterns, but to record
> the timing of the actual events themselves. The above experiments were not
> done to record event timing, but would have shown the proper results if
they
> had been. It is much easier today to do these experiments using hall
effect
> sensors mounted along the parallel resistance branches of an electrical
> circuit. Using high voltage electrons in current densities of a few
> femtoamps, and continuous monitoring of the setup with a computer, it is
> possible to get nice results, provided all parallel branch detectors are
> synchronized to a good atomic time source. Many times, there are multiple
> events registered - eqivalent to measuring the same electron in more than
> one of the parallel branches, at the same time.

And again how did they contradict QM? Specifically how does this disprove
the Copenhagen interpretation? Details please.

>
> >
> > >
>
> [...]
>
> > probabilities.
> >
> > So -ihbar in front of a complex function always yields an imaginary
> result?
> > Go back to kindergarten twerp.
>
> You are again bringing up irrelevancies to the discussion.

You claimed and I quote: 'The Schrödinger equation is completely
imaginary - we must resort to the artifice of squaring it to get real
probabilities.'. The fact is the Schrodenger equation is not completely
imaginary - it has both real and imaginary parts - it is a complex function.
It is obvious you have no idea what your talking about if you do not
understand the difference between a purely imaginary function and a complex
function - purely imaginary means it only has a complex part - complex means
it has real and imaginary parts.

>
> >
> > > Don't square it. You remember that lecture in University? No,
> > > because there never was one.
> >
> > Yeah right - it was all a figment of my imagination.
>
> Now you are catching on.

Yep - that you live in a dream world.

>
> >
> > > Yes, you do live in the real world, and that is
> > > why you can't grasp what I am saying.
> >
> > From the mouth of babes - incerease your meds.
>
> Perhaps you would care to let me try a few of the ones you currently take?
> But, from the degenration of your replies, I think they are not working
too
> well for you, Bill.

Unfortunately they are not strong enough for you. I occasionally take
Avanza for depression but not being able to sort reality from imaginings
requires stronger medication. I suggest Trifluoperazine.

>
> >
> > > It's okay, though. This attitude
> > > reflects more than ever precisely why "publishing in a refereed
journal'
> > > would be the wrong thing to do at this time.
> >
> > Not to mention the waste of time it would be for the people reviewing
it.
> > But you underestimate yourself - laughter has its uses.
>
> Yes a good socratic dialogue always includes laughter along with the
tears.
> I had no realization Ancient Grecian philosophy was one of your interests.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >So you tell me: is
> > > > > an imaginary 5 miles per hour faster or slower than a real 5 miles
> per
> > > > hour?
> > > > > If you say this example is hogwash, then you're waffling.
> > > >
> > > > You have the audacity to ask 'imaginary 5 miles per hour faster or
> > slower
> > > > than a real 5 miles per hour' and accuse me of waffling?
> > >
> > > You didn't answer the question. OK, I'll make it easier: which is
faster
> > i5
> > > Km/s or i6 Km/s??
> >
> > The complex field has no defined order relation idiot.
>
> *BINGO*!!! You finally say something relevant and meaningful. It shows
you
> still are capable of learning new concepts. Now, apply this new-found idea
> to probability waves ( psi and not psi-squared) and you are halfway toward
> understanding what a P2 Remnant wave is, and how it allows for meaningful
> superluminal communiocation.

And this is an insight that is supposed to revolutionize our view of the
world?

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you haven't read the website, or have no intention of reading
it,
> > > then
> > > > I
> > > > > will summarize my method for you. The "transmitter" is a device
> that,
> > > like
> > > > a
> > > > > normal AM transmitter, allows you to modulate a carrier wave. At
> this
> > > > point
> > > > > you have a complex signal comprised of real and imaginary
> components.
> > > Both
> > > > > the real and imaginary parts of this complex signal are identical,
> > > > including
> > > > > the information you put onto them. The signal is stripped of its
> real
> > > > > component which gets left to warm the unit, in the DMC which is
> > modeled
> > > > > after a single slit diffraction grating, because that is what it
> > > > essentially
> > > > > does. A DMC can be as simple as a triode vacuum tube set at some
> > > > particular
> > > > > potential voltage - the electron either will or will not be
stopped
> by
> > > the
> > > > > mesh. You have therefore created a simple quantum decision making
> > > circuit.
> > > > > What you get left with is an imaginary probability. More
> importantly,
> > > you
> > > > > now have an 'imaginary signal' that is modulated with your
> > information.
> > > > You
> > > > > need to do this because imaginary signals have no real noise and
> will
> > > not
> > > > > collapse the pipeline you have established between the DMC in the
> > > > > transmitter (which is analogous to the mixer stage in a radio
> > > transmitter)
> > > > > and the RLB -reintegration logic block- in the 'receiver' which
> > performs
> > > > the
> > > > > same function as a detector in a radio receiver, in reversing the
> > > process
> > > > > and putting the signal back together again.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why I am so strong in my argument that what I have done
> doesn't
> > > > > change any physics you know. It sidesteps most of the issues.
> That's
> > > why
> > > > I
> > > > > go to so much trouble tearing into the single slit experiment on
my
> > > site -
> > > > > every quantum decision, natural or man made, has a superluminal
side
> > to
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > That is only one possiblity.
> > >
> > > True, but it is the only possibility that fits what I observe.
> >
> > What you observe is irrelevant - what can be observed in reproducible
> > experiments is.
> Though the process is painful and high energy, I am teaching you new
things
> without the benefit of your 'peer reviewed', 'officially sanctioned',
> conventional method. Also, the experiment I outline above is highly
> reproducible for anyone who cares to bother.

Typical crackpot conspiratorial rant - they claim to have seen through the
'establishment'. Except of course they usually provide no actual evidence
the establishment is incorrect - just vague claims of 'teaching you new
things' when an examination reveals they are saying either gibberish,
buzzwords string together from popularizations, misunderstandings or rubbish
phrased in such a way as to say precisely nothing.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Quantum mechanics absolutely requires FTL signaling or it can't
> work.
> > > And
> > > > > there is no cosmic censor making sure man made
> information -meaningful
> > > > > information- is eliminated from the equation. The universe doesn't
> > care
> > > a
> > > > > whit.
> > > >
> > > > So Enstein was a fool when he admitted defeat in not being able to
> > refute
> > > > the Copenhagen interpretion? You have seen what he and Bohr was not
> > able
> > > to
> > > > see - a logical problem with the Copnhagne interetation that
demansds
> > FTL?
> > > > Mind filling us in oh great one.
> > >
> > > Einstein should have lived longer. I really think towards the end of
his
> > > life, he was just too tired to keep arguing with the young kids. He
> > couldn't
> > > come up with unification for the same reason the scientists today
can't
> > come
> > > up with it. Incomplete information. I sure wouldn't have minded if
> > Einstein
> > > had become a member of my FTL working group. Based on my work, I think
> he
> > > would have come to one major conclusion: "motion" is inconsequential
> when
> > > propagation is instantaneous. It doesn't matter if the transmitter and
> > > receiver are both stationary, or that one or the other is moving, or
> that
> > > both are moving. He would also have predicted that quantum theory sets
> > > precedence over relativity theory, but would also admit to a chain of
> > > irrefutable logic which would have silenced Bohr: just as Newton was
> more
> > > correct than Galileo, and as his own theory was more correct than
> > Newton's,
> > > coming from the other direction, since I have demonstrated in detail
our
> > mis
> > > conceptualization of the single slit experiment (the heart and sole of
> > QM),
> > > that the main body of work that the Copenhagen interpretation is based
> on
> > is
> > > not complete, that quantum theory as we know it today is also not
> correct.
> > A
> > > more complete interpretation of quantum theory *must* admit that
> > > instantaneous action at a distance is a natural consequence of any
> quantum
> > > decision. Without it, the wave function would never collapse. The
> > universe
> > > would always be in a superposition of infinite states and totally
> chaotic.
> >
> > The audacity of crackpots never ceases to amaze.
>
> Your words exactly (typos included): "You have seen what he and Bohr was
> notable to see - a logical problem with the Copnhagne interetation that
> demansds FTL? Mind filling us in oh great one."
>
> I did what you asked, once I figured out what you were trying to say
through
> the froth, and you think I am audacious for answering your question? Now
> that's *Bodacious*...

Mind refreshing my memory and detailing exactly why QM must be non local in
violation of the Copenhagen interpretation which says there is no reality
'out there' in the usual sense to be non local?

>
> >
> > >
> > > Strangely enough, this is exactly the conclusion others, such as
Hawking
> > and
> > > Feynman, have reached.
> >
> > Reference please
> >
> > > Feynman's sum over histories approach requires the
> > > use of imaginary time to allow quantum decoherence ...
> >
> > Reference please.
> >
> Well for starters. Look up how to solve QM using Feynman's
> sum-over-histories method.

Been there done that. Have got Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics and
Field Theory by Amnon Katz. He goes into the detail of the Feynman sum over
history approach and it has nothing to do with 'imaginary time'; basically
it is based on a wonderful mathematical technique called saddle point
integration that explains the connection between variational principles and
QM. Now again I ask you for a reference.

> If you really need to read something, offhand I
> would refer you to Hawkings popular book, "A brief History of Time".

So that is were your getting you buzz words from. References require more
detail than popular writing by an author that proudly proclaims that every
equation he put in the book would reduce its sales by half. So again I ask
for references giving the technical detail of your claims.

> There
> are so many versions, but in the first hardbound edition printed in
America
> look up 'imaginary time", page 134. Then there is also a June13, 1988
> article in Newsweek, pg. 59. There are also numerous places you can look
at
> on the web. Use Google.
>
> A couple of the more interesting places:
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm
>
> http://www.specularium.org/imaginary.html
>

I ask for references and he gives me popularizations of dubious actual
merit. Hey Gresky have you actually read a proper physics book? It usually
has a mathematical analysis of things. Such as the standard reference
Weinberg - The Quantum Theory of Fields. Take a look at pages 475 - 476
where what is called Wick Rotation is discussed. It is a mathematical
technique of contour integration (part of complex analysis - you know that
area where 'We don't even have maths that work on imaginary variables') that
allows us to mathematically handle certain integrations. It is a
mathematical trick and is what is meant when imaginary time is mentioned in
connection with the sum over histories approach. It has absolutely nothing
to do with time being imaginary or anything like that. And of course
nothing to do with standard QM being part of QFT. But of course it is
doubtful you would even understand what contour integration is because it is
obvious all you doing is stringing together buzz words from popularizations
and claiming them as physical insight.

Bill

>
> > > which is getting back
> > > to what I have been saying concerning the nature of quantum processes.
> > >
> >
> > Let us see what the references have to say shall we?
> > Bill
> >
> Have a blast....
>
> Greysky
>
> www.allocations.cc
> Learn how to build a FTL radio.
>
>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Entanglement and FTL information transfer
    ... Avanza for depression but not being able to sort reality from imaginings ... >> Reference please ... Such as the standard reference ... doubtful you would even understand what contour integration is because it is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Thanks Brian Clifford
    ... Didn't I just miss a reference to plans for a dehumidifier setup? ... that senility's imaginings? ...
    (rec.crafts.woodturning)
Loading