Alain Aspect + The Holographic Universe

[ZWord]

ER, no you didn't. Look back over the thread. more evidence(if it were needed) that you find it difficult to hold together the thread of an argument, and if challenged resort to trying to sound impressive without dealing with the substance of an issue.

I asked you, - what does the speed of light being finite have to do with any of this- you replied

" "

Which I have to say, I don't think really qualifies as an answer. But unpacked probably means, I'm really clever, and you don't know what you're talking about.



tbh - think your question is meaningless, or alternatively, I don't understand it, but, if pressed, I'm inclined to say -It's as easy as separating the wheat from the chav.

 

[laptop]

The question is the answer to "what does the speed of light being finite have to do with any of this?"

It is:

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

 

[gurrier]

I asked you, - what does the speed of light being finite have to do with any of this

The idea of the instantaneous transmission of information through quantum entanglement depends on you taking two particles that are initially entangled and seperating them in terms of space. Once they are separated, you can test one of them for its direction of spin and the other one will thereupon collapse from a state of quantum uncertainty into a state where its direction of spin is orthagonal to the other.

If you can't see how the speed of light limits this process, you aren't in much of a position to build theories based upon it and you would be better off spending several years trying to understand it before venturing into the field of fresh theorising again.

edit to add: laptop just answered it and my clue is wasted

 

[laptop]

separating the wheat from the chav.

I shall, however, treasure this.

"It's like taking butties from a townie."

 

[ZWord]

ARe you the same person then?

What do you think of Tony Blair btw. ?

The speed of light doesn't limit this process. That's part of the experimental proof of bell's theorem by alain aspect and others. That's why it's considered astounding, as aspect's experiments essentially prove that the Einsteinian view of the universe is now as out of date as the newtonian view of the universe.

Translation of your post (s). I can't argue with you on this one, so I'll take refuge in pretending that I understand it far better than you do, and that you can't engage with me as you're too ignorant.

And for your info. jack #Sarfatti is a distinguished physicist... And you are not.

So's David Bohm.

 

[laptop]

ARe you the same person then?

Yes, we're a conspiracy. Against you. Because your Theory is so important.

The speed of light doesn't limit this process.

I said, we have to take this in discrete stages. One at a time. My question is the necessary first stage.

That's part of the experimental proof of bell's theorem by alain aspect and others.

The invocation of Aspect in the thread title demonstrates the mediæval Argument-from-Authority outlook of the original rant on rense.com - which as far as I can tell you have still not read. Aspect is an experimentalist. If he has done any theoretical work on the implications of his experiment, I would be pleased to see references.

Jack #Sarfatti is a distinguished physicist...

No he's not. He's a joke going back (at least) to the origins of Usenet News.

Have you read any of the critiques of his arXived paper?

And you are not.

No, I am not a professional physicist. But I have argued such questions, in person, with actual, distinguished, physicists.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

 

[ZWord]

You are full of shit.

 

[laptop]

You are full of shit.

This is true.

About six feet of it, anyway.

* Has a dump *

Not, now, as full of shit as you are.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

 

[ZWord]

Do you still think that light is a small scale phenomenon?

Do you still think that the wetness of a pint has nothing to do with another physically inexplicable phenomenon?

Do you still think that skin seen through a microscope isn't real skin because it looks different?

Do you really think that answering a question with a question is a good demonstration of how knowledgeable you are? To me, it looks like a load of bullshit rhetoric.

How fast can I separate my entangled particles? Well speaking as me, I can't separate them at all. Speaking as God.. Faster than you. But equally, not at all, as they are me, and they don't separate, and they're not particles.

Ask a bullshit question...

 

[ZWord]

On the mediaeval argument from authority snipe. ..

On the one hand, when people point out the perfectly obvious truth that the universe is magical on the basis of everyday experience, people like you call it purely anecdotal, i.e, you're just a mad fucker, why should we believe you?

Cite serious scientific experimental evidence that information travels faster than light between any two "particles" that have previously interacted, and you call it the medieaval argument from authority.

And you said Merlin Wood was impervious to rational argument..

 

[laptop]

Ah, small movement in the direction of an answer...

How fast can I separate my entangled particles?

1. Well speaking as me, I can't separate them at all.
2. Speaking as God.. Faster than you.
3. But equally, not at all, as they are me, and they don't separate, and they're not particles.

But in fact some evasions

1. Do some work, and you might get the funding to try
2. You are speaking as God? Blimey.
3. So do you take it as axiomatic that they don't separate?

Ask a bullshit question...

It's abso-fucking-lutely central.

You've twigged why the question answers yours entirely and why there is no faster-than-light communication, haven't you? So you can be honest and answer the question directly. In metres per second if words are too painful.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

 

[ZWord]

Ah, small movement in the direction of an answer...



But in fact some evasions

1. Do some work, and you might get the funding to try
2. You are speaking as God? Blimey.
3. So do you take it as axiomatic that they don't separate?

It's abso-fucking-lutely central.

You've twigged why the question answers yours entirely and why there is no faster-than-light communication, haven't you? So you can be honest and answer the question directly. In metres per second if words are too painful.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

Not at all.

I find your question meaningless, think you're speaking total bullshit, think you're fundamentally intellectually dishonest, and am quite convinced that you are taking refuge in answering unanswerable meaningless questions, because you don't have the expertise or the argument to explain why you're right, and I'm wrong.

That's what rhetorical types do when they haven't got an argument. If you were really an expert on the subject and me a poor deluded fool, who's seizing onto an argument from authority that appears to support what I Want to believe, then you'd be kind enough to explain it in detail, rather than ask bullshit rhetorical questions. I know this from experience, and when I find that someone doesn't know what I'm talking about, I try to explain it, rather than asking patronising bullshit questions to lead them up the garden path, but then my motives are probably a bit different from yours. You just like to pretend to be an expert, when you don't know shit, either about science or about life. Or if you do know about life, then you're just a fucking liar.

What do you think of Tony Blair btw?
Have you ever answered a question honestly?

Cause this is all to do with politics really. There are powerful economic and political reasons for having an official view of reality that suggests that it's all really meaningless shite, and that it's every man for himself.

 

[laptop]

I find your question meaningless

Why?

We can't get onto that, or onto possible motivations for supporting epistemological positions, until we've dealt with this very simple question.

And it is very simple, and goes to the heart of your claim about ftl communication.

Take two photons, entangled.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

 

[ZWord]

Why don't you explain what it means then?

It's called unpacking, something that experts normally have to do for lesser minds.

In fact, if you have a viewpoint at all, rather than a dogma, or a refutation of the significance of the aspect experiments, why don't you just explain it, rather than asking bullshit questions over and over again, when Ii've clearly indicated that I have no idea what you're on about, and don't believe you have anything valuable to say. ???

 

[laptop]

Why don't you explain what it means then?

What's to unpack? It is a very simple question. Your answer will determine where, if anywhere, the discussion goes next.

You posit ftl communication, using entangled particles.

You start with two entangled particles.

Then you separate them.

Then someone observes one of them.

This is your proposed scheme.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

 

[gurrier]

Another clue:

It's sometimes called 'spooky action at a distance' or something like that.

Now when particles start out entangled the distance is zero.

To get them to interact at a distance you have to increase the distance from zero. How fast can you increase this distance?

 

[ZWord]

That's not even a question. Obviously they separate spatially at the speed they separate spatially.

that's an analytic truth, but totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion, much like the things you brought up on that thread I started.

 

[laptop]

Obviously they separate spatially at the speed they move spatially.

And that speed is?

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

 

[gurrier]

Obviously they separate spatially at the speed they move spatially.

And what speed do these small particles such as photons (aka light) move at spatially?

 

[ZWord]

And that speed is?

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

I think you're confusing two different possible interpretations of "separate" .

 

[laptop]

I think you're confusing two different possible interpretations of "separate" .

Separate: verb transitive (sep·a·rate): to space apart. That one.

As is clear from the use of the subject "you" in the sentence.

So how fast can you separate your entangled particles?

 

[ZWord]

Well, I would have thought it was fairly obvious to anyone that particles of light separate spatially at a speed
not unrelated to the speed at which particles of light move.

This much, I would have thought we could take as read. Why you have wasted an inordinate amount of time asking questions that we both know the answer to, in fact questions in which the answer is contained in the question, would be beyond me, if it weren't for my suspicion that the explanation is that you enjoy putting yourself in the position of patroniser, and are about to try to pull a fast one.

 

[laptop]

Well, I would have thought it was fairly obvious to anyone that particles of light separate spatially at a speed not unrelated to the speed at which particles of light move.

So, though you cannot bring yourself to say it without obfuscation, the answer to the question is: "at the speed of light".

Next question.

But first a recap appears to be necessary.

You start with two particles, entangled, in the same place.

You separate them, at the speed of light (or less).

After they are separated, someone observes one of them and makes a deduction about the state of the other.

The question is:

Given that the entire process of communication (as described above) is limited by the speed at which you can separate the particles, how can you claim that there is any communication faster than the speed of light?

 

[gurrier]

woops didn't see last page - ignore

 

[ZWord]

So, though you cannot bring yourself to say it without obfuscation, the answer to the question is: "at the speed of light".

Next question.

But first a recap appears to be necessary.

You start with two particles, entangled, in the same place.

You separate them, at the speed of light (or less).

After they are separated, someone observes one of them and makes a deduction about the state of the other.

The question is:

Given that the entire process of communication (as described above) is limited by the speed at which you can separate the particles, how can you claim that there is any communication faster than the speed of light?

You haven't described it accurately at all, the whole thing about them separating at the speed of light which was obvious from the beginning, was designed by you to try and pull a fast one. In fact, the speed at which they separate spatially is really totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion, and I think you only brought it up, in order to try to confuse two distinct meanings of the verb separate, in order to try to prove that information travelling faster than light by a semantic sleight of hand. going to what you actually said, , the process of communication is not limited by the speed at which the particles separate spatially, the speed at which the particles separate spatially, has nothing to do with it.

What actually happens in the experiments is that two particles are emitted simultaneously from a source in opposite directions, - a measurement made on one of them affects the state of that one, and its state is found to correlate with a measurement made on its pair. The act of measuring the state of one of the "particles" affected the state of the other. There is no reason to suppose that this instantaneous change would not be the case even if the particles travelled a few light years away from each other, There is no obvious reason why this should be so. Either, (speaking in terms of the einsteinian view of the universe) it means that information gets from one "particle" to the other faster than light, or else it means that despite appearances, even at hyperspatial distances, these two "particles" are not distinct entities in different locations.

"The EPR experiment began with a process that emitted two photons simultaneously, but in exactly opposite spin states. If you measure the polarity of one photon, you then knew exactly what the polarization of the other one was, however, there were exactly two possibilities for the polarization of the first photon and you would not know what it was until after you made the measurement. However, once you had established what it was, the paradox is that the other photon had to suddenly be in the opposite state. Einstein felt that this disproved quantum mechanics because it required information traveling faster than the speed of light.

What Aspect's measurements showed was that Einstein's expectations were wrong. Rather than faster-than-light information travel, Aspect concluded that the two photons remain linked together into a macroscopic 'non-local' system. Quantum indeterminacy, therefore, is not going to go away by adding some hidden process that involves faster than light interactions. This also means, I think, that adding 'compact dimensions' to spacetime does not solve the problem of non-locality because distant particles cannot use these other dimensions to signal to each other through 'shortcuts' in spacetime. No existing theory that included compact dimensions ( string theory, supergravity theory etc) advocates that these compact dimensions are larger than roughly the Planck scale of 10^-33 centimeters. This is too small to allow photons separated by meters to 'interact'."

If the two photons remain linked together in a macroscopic non-local system, then really - it follows that the whole universe is internconnected in a macroscopic non-local system,( as it all started from the same point) -- which is actually even more bizarre than saying that information travels faster than light. It's really just two different ways of saying the same thing. If they're non-locally connected, then actually information doesn't travel faster than light, it just appears to.
But within the normal realist asumptions about locality, that's a fair description, and the alternative is that it's all a great big illusion.

http://www.santiagosr.com/secinteresante3.aspx
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/qnonloc/qnonloc.htm

 

[laptop]

You make claims about communication.

So let's talk about communication.

Alice wishes to send a message to Bob.

Alice has a pair of entangled particles.

How may Alice send a message to Bob that travels fasterthanthespeedoflight?

 

[ZWord]

I have no interest in talking to you any further.

 

[ZWord]

Thanks for annoying me, and reminding me that all my actions and thoughts continue to affect the whole world, even though I forget it on a day to day basis.

But, ifyou like, do tell me what you think of Tony Blair.

 

[laptop]

You spend nearly four hours avoiding the answer to a very simple question - because, clearly, you could see that it was leading to a challenge to your magickal belief system.

There would be, at a guess, thirty or forty more questions to go through to get to the beginning of a proper discussion of your claims about physics. You gave up at the second.

So will you stop making absurd claims about physics supporting your quasi-religious beliefs?

 

[ZWord]

Actually, I can't resist.

That last question is easy.

Alice pops some LSD, goes through the looking glass, has a chat with uncle Bob, listens to some reggae, and then uncle Bob, sends a message to his counterpart on this side of the looking glass, (as they are definitively entangled, this is easy, ) and then alice returns, and as she was in looking glass world when sending the message the whole process when she returns appears to have taken no time at all.