Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox

From: John Schoenfeld (j.schoenfeld_at_programmer.net)
Date: 01/29/05 

Date: 28 Jan 2005 18:10:55 -0800

Bilge wrote:
> John Schoenfeld:
> >Bilge wrote:
>
> >> Bzzzzt. There is no theoretical basis for superluminal
amything.
> >
> >As I suggested in my previous post, some QFT models do not require
the
>
> Which for some reason, you failed to specify in detail.

> >alegbra of the causal completion of space-time to be equivalent to
the
> >algebra of space-time. This means that under certain circumstances
> >Lorentzian maximum frame velocity does not apply. If one only
considers
> >Relativity, this result is underivable.
>
> There's nothing I find less illuminating than a lot of words that
> mean nothingm either because the words are nothing but strings of
> soundbites or because the wors are taken out any context that
> makes them meaningful. The ``algebra of the causal completion of
> space-time'' is: [Insert mathematical definition of the algebra
here].

There exists a C*-algebra A of the causal completion of a Minkowski
space S and a C*-algebra B of S such that A != B. You know nothing,
idiot.

> If you think the algebra of spacetime is something other than the
> poincare algebra then you think the algebra is: [Insert mathematical
> definition of the algebra here].

Contumaciously untutored idiot.

> After doing that, explain the circumstances arising from the
> inequivalence of those two algebras lead to the results you assert.
My
> responses are based on the information you supply and what you've
supplied
> so far looks like jargon and soundbites. If you expect a response
based on
> something other than the jargon and soundbites supplied, supply
something
> other than jargon and soundbites. I'm not obligated to become a
telepath
> just to refute the misuse of terminology.
>
> >> The real question is why you (and others) find it more
satisfying
> >> to try and ``overthrow'' relativity at the level that relativity
> >> is simply a fact rather than put the same effort into studying
> >> enough basic physics to understand what the real questions are.
> >
> >You are now moving the argument into a personal one and attacking
my
> >motivations instead of the content of my argument. If my argument
is
>
> You argument is content free precisely for the reasons I stated.
> You use a lot of jargon that doesn't mean anything. Spend the time
> studying physics first.

Idiot.

> >wrong, so be it. But perhaps you would be better served elaborating
on
> >your "superluminal anything is impossible" argument by explaining
why
> >in the context of Local Quantum theory this result is not always
hold
> >(I recommend you familiarize yourself with Haag-Kastler.)
>
> Which axiom do you contend supports you?

All are consistent, idiot.

"Algebraic Quantum Field Theory".

> >> There is a lot of interesting physics in every subdiscipline, yet
> >> the only ones that are constantly an issue on this newsgroup are
> >> the ones that were answered long ago.
> >
> >This is a red herring which you are raising to divert the argument.
If
> >I'm wrong then explain why this result does not always hold in
Quantum
> >theory.
>
> You are wrong because the result does hold in quantum field
theory.

Idiocy protected by ignorance.

> What I've said is not a red herring because you have made an
unwarranted
> inference for exactly the reasons I've stated. You are connecting
sound-
> bites to avoid studying physics and have no idea what those
soundbites
> mean. Your reference to ``priests'' indicates your motivations to
> ``overthrow'' relativity in spite of the fact that the very jargon
you
> are using comes from members of the ``clergy.''

Nothing, idiot.

> [...]
> >> I know what you outlined. What you outlined is wrong.
> >
> >If you cannot show why, your argument is only opinion.
>
> That's okay with me. What I'm aruing with is your opinion and I
have no
> intention of trying to figure out every possible way you could have
> misunderstood that upon which you've based your opinion. Once you
state
> something specific, I'll address it specifically. The fact that, in
> another response, you say that you are unfamiliar with shannon's
work,
> only tells you me have no idea what information means. It's rather
> difficult to know anything about information theory without being
familiar
> with the work done by the person who invented information theory.
>
> >
> >> [...]
> >> >"Comparing datasets" is a common red herring raised by priests,
but
> >> >such comparisons are unnecessary. The receiver always assumes
the
> >> >information is valid at the physical layer (otherwise it would
be
> >> >constrained by c/2). Half-duplex information receivers like
> >televisions
> >> >and radios are perfect examples of this.
> >>
> >> I suggest, ``Kolmogorov Complexity and It's Applications,''
> >> vitanyi and li, ``The Physics of Information,'' ed. Zurek, W.,
> >> and john preskill's web site at caltech on quantum information.
> >
> >I am very familiar with the work of Kolmogorov,
>
> Which in what way obviates the textbook I suggested?
>
> >and it does not help your argument at all.
>
> I agree that what you know about the work of kolmogorov doesn't
> help my argument, but I never suggested that it did or that what
> you knew about kolmogorov's work was relevent. In fact, kolmogorov's
> work isn't relevant to the reason I suggested that textbook.
>
> >Instead it is the basis of my argument, and that is that the
Kolmogorov
> >zero-one law dictates superluminal information exchange can occur
as
> >a tail event.
>
> The basis of your argument is flawed and the textbook I suggested
> might even help illuminate you, since the book is concerned with
> complexity and information theory. Kolmogorov's zero-one law only
> states that a tail event has a probability of either zero or one of
> occurring. It says nothing about what defines an event in quantum
> field theory. Your entire argument hinges on erroneously equivocating
> tail events in a distribution, field amplitudes and information.
>
> >I also see you have omitted the links which I previously posted. I
have
> >restored them below.
>
> That's no surprise. Crackpots always do that, as if ``restoring''
> the links somehow strengthens an argument that isn't supported
> by the links. The links don't support anything you've said. The
> fact that have given no argument explaining why those links support
> what you've said, I have no way of determining why you think those
> articles support your argument. I'll leave the links if it makes
> you feel better, despite being irrelevant.
>
> >> http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/4/7/8/1
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm
> >> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/
> >
> >Also, observations in astronomy show an apparant superluminal
motion:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion
>
> Just in case english isn't your first language, the word
``apparent''
> means ``not necessarily as it appears'', which in this context means
> something that it looks like superluminal motion, but really isn't
> superluminal motion.

God is the Ghost universe, Priest?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox
    ... Contumaciously untutored idiot. ... > so far looks like jargon and soundbites. ... > with the work done by the person who invented information theory. ... > work isn't relevant to the reason I suggested that textbook. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cannot copy files in use?
    ... You think you can teach the idiot anything, ... whole reason he started this thread is that he was trying to COPY files ... another location in order to "clone " his system partition. ... One could always convert to FAT32 and do it. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: MW
    ... That same premise puts both of you in the idiot category, ... For the same reason that almost no one in the ng wants any email from ... "You're scum. ... Mickey Spillane is spinning in his grave. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: New info: Seagate
    ... It makes you wonder whether the people doing the bullying have some sort of personal problems that they ought to get ironed out, before it ruins their lives as well as other people's. ... He then replies 5 times to his own posts spouting more and more rubbish before getting upset and giving it "I`ve got mental problems, ... The reason people dislike him is because he`s an idiot. ...
    (uk.adverts.computer)
  • Re: The Science Fiction That Wasnt
    ... no reason other than to feel special. ... So if sf fans had reasons to make up jargon, ... one important purpose for jargon is abbreviation. ... I've known individual groups more or less involved in ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)