Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Maybe I Didn't Catch That...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on October 28, 2003 20:57:11 UTC

the first one [several times]. Without the communication [passing critical information] before they separate the meaning of the measurement 'above and beyond what the measurement is' wouldn't be known and no rescue ship would be sent

Sorry, let me give you my take on this. Is there really anything unusual about doing this with any message? For example, "I'll call you when I'm ready to go", "here is my cell number if you want to call sometime", "how can I reach you", etc... These are all instances where we prearrange a message and give our codes, phone numbers, frequencies, etc, that tells the receiver how not to miss our message. Asking the receiver to conduct a measurement at a certain time and looking for a particular outcome strikes me as a message from a sender (regardless how this message was created and sent). As long as we can communicate a message over vast distances, we are in effect sending messages. And, if we could, in principle, send a message back in time we are definitely dealing with a message and not random data.

The experts on quantum non-local effects believe they are to random to violate Einstein's causality.

The way that I've seen these issues framed is in terms of one measurement outcome usually based on mutually exclusive states with a probability of 50/50 for the converse state being realized. The problem with examining these kind of test scenarios is that you cannot exploit a 50/50 situation since we don't know which state to expect when we do the measurement. There is no way for Alice to determine if Bob performed a measurement in the first place since she has equal probability of expecting state U or state D, and therefore there is no way to communicate a message. In the case that state U is 49/50 times more likely than state D, then if Alice get state D repeatedly, this is more likely to be a result of the mutually exclusive entangled state being measured by Bob since Alice is getting unusual results in her measurement. So, the question is whether the 'right' experimental questions are possible and whether they have been properly answered. I see nothing forbidding a quantum experiment that has state U as mutually exclusive to an entangled state D. If state U is 49/50 times more likely, then communicating instanteously seems feasible.

There are other experts who believe that any signal can be construed as having carried information so a debate exists 'what is information'. Thats why it is important to understand what this actually means at the experimental level 'no causal relationship can exist which requires information to propagate faster than the speed of light'.

Others can debate what is information, but if you can communicate an instantaneous message that changes your course of action in a manner that someone wants you to do, then the debate itself is irrelevant from my way of looking at things. That is, who cares if I am sending information just as long as we are communicating vast differences? If I can tell you I need a spaceship sent because I'm in trouble, then this is a message. If I use this ability to create a causal loop, then I am violating special relativity.

You said the relativity community has a problem accepting 'whatever' when it is actually scientists who have done the experiments who have the best knowlwdge of what is happening.

Well, I assume scientists know what they are doing, but I want to understand why they think that special relativity theory can hold if I'm able to send an instantaneous message. I was hoping that you might be able to explain it in the context of the thought experiments that I constructed. I've also asked a quantum scientist, let's see what they say. [Although, it appears few are interested in any questions that challenge special relativity, even if it is just for fun].

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins