The motivated Assupmtion [Archive]

espritch

15th March 2003, 11:14 AM

So given a new approach, what does that do to the assumption criteria for new theories? Can a belief based on scientific speculation be equivalent to a religious belief?

There is really no such thing as scientific speculation. There is only speculation. A scientist may speculate on some observed phenomena (i.e. form a hypothesis), but the hypothesis does not become science until it is subjected to the process of science – accumulation of evidence, testing, and peer review. Wackos like to claim science is just another religion. They do so mainly because they know their own hypothesis will fail the test of science, so they must declare the process of science to be faulty or subjective. Once they have gone down this path, they are essentially in the realm of religion where a thing is taken to be true because they believe it to be true.

From the site:
While you may challenge my claims lack evidence, you can not deny the plausibility of my arguments on the basis of the science that I use to describe ET.

So he’s going to use science to describe an ET for which he lacks evidence? Without evidence, there is no science.

BrunosStar

16th March 2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by espritch
So he’s going to use science to describe an ET for which he lacks evidence? Without evidence, there is no science.

Sure there is, it's called a hypothesis.

Bruno

Denise

16th March 2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

Sure there is, it's called a hypothesis.

Bruno

A hypothesis is an eductated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated.:D

Stimpson J. Cat

16th March 2003, 07:11 AM

Denise,

A hypothesis is an educated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated. :D

An excellent point.

The purpose of s scientific hypothesis is to provide an explanation for a set of observations. With respect to the existence of ETs, the observation that needs to be explained is the observation that all accounts of encounters with ETs are extremely unreliable. The hypothesis that this is because we have never actually been visited by ETs does a pretty good job of explaining this observation. It also has the nice property of being falsifiable.

If we want to answer the question of whether extraterrestrial life exists or not, we need to start with the hypothesis that it does not, and proceed by actively attempting to falsify it. It is exactly what things like the SETI project are attempting to do.

What we should not be doing, is constructing elaborate conspiracy theories and fanciful scenarios, in order to try to reconcile the available evidence (or lack thereof) with whatever preconceived notions we may have about the subject.

As for the original claim in this thread:

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Ultimately this means that all knowledge is based in a belief or faith.

This ignores the fact that theories do not equal knowledge. Our theories become knowledge only by verifying them with reliable evidence. If we simply made up theories, and then accepted them as true (as religions do), then that would be faith. But that is not how science works.

Even the fundamental principles of science are based on solid supporting evidence. Sure, they cannot be logically proven to be valid. No statement about reality can be logically proven to be true. All that means is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge.

if you want absolute certainty of something, that is when you have to have faith. You might as well just call it wishful thinking, though, because that is really all it is.

Dr. Stupid

BrunosStar

16th March 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Denise
A hypothesis is an eductated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated.:D

I think you fail to see what observations can be used. For instance, Carl Sagan speculated that life on other worlds could exist. He based his hypothesis on life here on earth. If we apply the Drake equation, another hypothesis, to the possibility of intelligent life, we can conservatively get 2400 civilizations with a sophisticated technology. The Drake equation's flaw is time; it doesn't factor when civilizations can exist. So we're looking at a time period of some 300 million years! It also doesn't factor how many times a species or how many different species on a single world can attempt developing sophisticated technology.

So now that I have given you the observations by which the hypothesis is based on, you can understand the next step. The next step is developing a conceivable method by which an ET can use to actually get here. Once a method is developed, a means of explaining how an ET could find us needs to be developed. The site offers both an explanation of how to reach and find earth or the slew of earth like planets in our galaxy.

So the hypothesis is based on evidence, but it is indirect evidence and is based on the probability of such events as the creation and evolution of life happening else where in the universe. So the statement on the site is scientifically accurate:

"It is inevitable that an ET would visit earth. It is inevitable if in our galaxy there is an intelligence that can produce a sophisticated enough technology and has a desire to explore the cosmos. If this contingency is met, then earth has been visited, is being visited or will be visited."

Note it doesn't say it has to be here, only that the potential of an ET reaching us is inevitable some time in earth’s existence.

Bruno

phobos

17th March 2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Given that with today 's thinking an ET arrival is impossible. What if those objections could be over come? Below is a link to a site that approaches the exploration of the galaxy very differently. Granted the author is a little over zealous, but after you read it you'll get the point as to why it was done that way.

http://luvinspoon.tripod.com

The guy's read 2010 :-)

von Neumann spaceprobes: fine, but not EPR communications. Yes, the spooky channel communicates 'instantly' but to actually transmit useful information then you have to send information along conventional channels too. EPR allows secure communications, but not FTL. Remember that if information can be propagated faster than light, it can also be sent back in time.

BillyJoe

17th March 2003, 03:18 AM

Anyone know what sort of optical illusion those cigar shaped objects represent? :cool:

[IMG]Edited to delete a free advertisement[IMG]

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by phobos

The guy's read 2010 :-)

von Neumann spaceprobes: fine, but not EPR communications. Yes, the spooky channel communicates 'instantly' but to actually transmit useful information then you have to send information along conventional channels too. EPR allows secure communications, but not FTL. Remember that if information can be propagated faster than light, it can also be sent back in time.

I think you're confusing the modulation of the channel with actually using the causality effects to send information. In effect you can use quantum-computing techniques to perform qu bit operations on an entangled particle. This measure of the particle would then effect the partnered particle. So information can be sent FTL.

AS far as FTL going back in time, you have a very poor understanding of time. Time has a very definitive nature; it is cause and effect, why relativity was able to predict time dilation. Time dilation is due to the increased path that reactions (cause and effects) would take under motion or gravitational fields. Why time is entropic in nature. Many people confuse time dilation with being able to travel back in time, thinking if it slows down it could then even reverse. Any abstraction using relativity to demonstrate backward travel in time, describes time as being similar to a spatial dimension, which is inappropriate. So FTL simply realizes zero time, as does the speed of light.

Bruno

FutileJester

17th March 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
I think you fail to see what observations can be used. For instance, Carl Sagan speculated that life on other worlds could exist. He based his hypothesis on life here on earth. If we apply the Drake equation, another hypothesis, to the possibility of intelligent life, we can conservatively get 2400 civilizations with a sophisticated technology. The Drake equation's flaw is time; it doesn't factor when civilizations can exist. So we're looking at a time period of some 300 million years! It also doesn't factor how many times a species or how many different species on a single world can attempt developing sophisticated technology.
This is still speculation, not evidence. And besides, I don't think anyone here is questioning that ET life is possible, even probable. They are questioning 'hypotheses' about specific modes of ET space travel based on, apparently, nothing.
So now that I have given you the observations by which the hypothesis is based on, you can understand the next step. The next step is developing a conceivable method by which an ET can use to actually get here. Once a method is developed, a means of explaining how an ET could find us needs to be developed. The site offers both an explanation of how to reach and find earth or the slew of earth like planets in our galaxy.
I don't see how unfounded speculation is ever the 'next step'. We cannot possibly sit here on earth and just think about ET's and come up with what they 'must' be like. We need to observe them. As a sci fi fan, I'm all for wild speculation, but let's keep it where it belongs. A good story does not make good science.

Have you ever read any Sagan? You should be aware that he thought SETI was the 'next step'. Why? To collect hard data for a testable hypothesis.
So the hypothesis is based on evidence, but it is indirect evidence and is based on the probability of such events as the creation and evolution of life happening else where in the universe. So the statement on the site is scientifically accurate:

"It is inevitable that an ET would visit earth. It is inevitable if in our galaxy there is an intelligence that can produce a sophisticated enough technology and has a desire to explore the cosmos. If this contingency is met, then earth has been visited, is being visited or will be visited."
No, it is not scientifically accurate. I doubt one could ever say that something which has never been observed before is inevitable. Even if we assume ET life is inevitable, it is possible that time and distance constraints ultimately deny an actual encounter. Making this kind of absolute statement about the unknown future is an act of faith, not science.
Note it doesn't say it has to be here, only that the potential of an ET reaching us is inevitable some time in earth’s existence.
Hmmm... To take a random example from the site you linked:
So how can ET get here and solve all the technical, economic and sociological problems? ET is the master of nano-technology, ET’s spacecraft do not carry living occupants, ET’s spacecraft are no larger than a pea! ET has made billions of these ships to explore billions of stars. Each star is sent several small ships so as to insure a successful mission in case one ship should fail for whatever reason. The nano-ships do not contain any miniature rocket engines or fuel. The small ships can be accelerated with far less energy than what would be required for any Star Trek ship. A solar sail propels the pea size ship. The sail is super thin much like an insect’s wings only thinner! The ship tacks around ET’s sun to accelerate to 30 percent the speed of light. It journeys to its star where it tacks to decelerate. It uses infrared and optical sensors to detect planets with the greatest probability of sustaining life. The ship detaches from its sail once it determines it will land.
This sounds a lot more specific than 'it should happen eventually'. What in the world are these ideas based on?

And that's the crux of the matter. You're making some huge leaps to make a belief sound like science. Sagan speculated on ET life, so they must use nanotech and solar sails. Drake wrote an equation full of unknown coefficients, so there are 2400 technological civilizations.

Speculation is fine. Speculation dressed up to sound like science is not. You say this is a hypothesis? A scientific hypothesis must be, in principle, falsifiable. What experiment could you design to attempt to falisfy this hypothesis? If no conceivable experiment could, then it's not science.

Martin

17th March 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
I think you're confusing the modulation of the channel with actually using the causality effects to send information. In effect you can use quantum-computing techniques to perform qu bit operations on an entangled particle. This measure of the particle would then effect the partnered particle. So information can be sent FTL

That's news to me. Last I heard to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement, th receiver requried the results of a measurement made by the sender. These results, of course, would have to be sent by other means, and so there is no FTL messaging here. Am I out of date?

AS far as FTL going back in time, you have a very poor understanding of time

No, he's entirely correct.

Many people confuse time dilation with being able to travel back in time, thinking if it slows down it could then even reverse. Any abstraction using relativity to demonstrate backward travel in time, describes time as being similar to a spatial dimension, which is inappropriate. So FTL simply realizes zero time, as does the speed of light

Completely false. Light can be used to divide spacetime into three regions. Suppose we fire out a single burst of photons in all directions. They will describe a sphere expanding in time. Viewed in the geometry of spacetime, they will describe a cone. This is the future lightcone. We can define the past lightcone in the obvious way.

http://appletree.mta.ca/courses/physics/4701/EText/Figures/LightCone01.GIF

Now - the separation between us and:

any point within our lightcone is timelike,

any point outwith our lightcone is spacelike

any point on the lightcone is null.

Timelike intervals preserve causality - if two events are separated by a timelike interval, there is no frame of reference in which the events are simultaneous or reversed in time. Spacelike intervals, on the other hand, do not share this property. In fact, for any two events separated by a spacelike interval one can always choose to transform to a different frame of reference in which the order is reversed. By definition, any two points connected by a FTL signal must be separated by a spacelike interval. Thus one can always choose a frame of reference in which the signal is seen to propogate backwards in time.

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester

This sounds a lot more specific than 'it should happen eventually'. What in the world are these ideas based on?

And that's the crux of the matter. You're making some huge leaps to make a belief sound like science. Sagan speculated on ET life, so they must use nanotech and solar sails. Drake wrote an equation full of unknown coefficients, so there are 2400 technological civilizations.

Speculation is fine. Speculation dressed up to sound like science is not. You say this is a hypothesis? A scientific hypothesis must be, in principle, falsifiable. What experiment could you design to attempt to falisfy this hypothesis? If no conceivable experiment could, then it's not science.

The idea that you’re quoting is based on a very simple principle of mass to energy ratio. A large star ship, as in Star Trek, takes a lot more energy than a much smaller ship. We see such examples in nature; insects can walk on ceilings as easily as walking on the ground, why? Gravity is not much of a burden due to its small size. And so with a small Star Ship, solar sails can propel such small ships to a higher percentage of the speed of light than could nuclear powered Star Trek ships! Can we falsify this idea? It already has been, count less times, with Newton’s second law of motion, F= MA.

Bruno

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Martinm
That's news to me. Last I heard to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement, th receiver requried the results of a measurement made by the sender. These results, of course, would have to be sent by other means, and so there is no FTL messaging here. Am I out of date?

You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles.

Completely false. Light can be used to divide spacetime into three regions. Suppose we fire out a single burst of photons in all directions. They will describe a sphere expanding in time. Viewed in the geometry of spacetime, they will describe a cone. This is the future lightcone. We can define the past lightcone in the obvious way.

You are, as all the others, inappropriately describing time as a spatial like dimension. Time is cause and effect. Time dilation works by a very specific process. Motion and gravity lengthen the distance between any two points as compared to either a frame moving slower or in less gravity. So any reaction will take longer in comparison to other frames that are in different environments. Time described as a cone is not accurate, time is, once again, cause and effect, not a future time line, or a past time line. There is no preservation of any reaction in terms of causes. The only memories of the reaction are the effects.

Bruno

Martin

17th March 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles

I'm well aware of that. That is why I said 'to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement'.

You are, as all the others

By 'all the others', I assume you mean physicists? This is pretty elementary stuff.

Time is cause and effect

And, as I explained, the ordering of two events connected by a FTL signal is dependent on frame of reference.

Irrelevancies snipped

Have you actually performed an experiment which disproves relativity? Or are you just making this up as you go?

RichardR

17th March 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles. That is according to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Of course, it may well not behave like that.

And even if it does, (as Martin pointed out), you cannot signal anything at faster than light speed. For any meaningful information to be passed, the receiver must have the results of a measurement made by the sender.

FutileJester

17th March 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
The idea that you’re quoting is based on a very simple principle of mass to energy ratio. A large star ship, as in Star Trek, takes a lot more energy than a much smaller ship. We see such examples in nature; insects can walk on ceilings as easily as walking on the ground, why? Gravity is not much of a burden due to its small size. And so with a small Star Ship, solar sails can propel such small ships to a higher percentage of the speed of light than could nuclear powered Star Trek ships!
And I'll say it again: this is speculation. Interstellar travel may happen as described. Some reasons are presented as to why it is plausible that interstellar travel may happen as described. But to say that this is how interstellar travel must happen is ludicrous. We don't even have a grand unified theory of physics yet; how can we possibly say with absolute certainty what an advanced alien technology will resemble? That's just arrogance. We don't know.

Can we falsify this idea? It already has been, count less times, with Newton’s second law of motion, F= MA.
Uh, right. Want to explain the incredible leap by which classical mechanics proves the inevitability of solar-sail nanoships?

And you obviously don't understand falsification. If the hypothesis is 'interstellar travel must happen by these means', then a falsification would be to observe interstellar travel by some other means. Until we get a detailed view of actual interstellar travel, or achieve it ourselves, the hypothesis cannot be falsified. We have to be content with ambiguity in the face of knowledge we simply don't have yet.

phobos

17th March 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester

And I'll say it again: this is speculation. Interstellar travel may happen as described. Some reasons are presented as to why it is plausible that interstellar travel may happen as described. But to say that this is how interstellar travel must happen is ludicrous.

One thing I will say is that of all the proposed approaches to interstellar travel, this one is the most cost-effective. The author of the webpage in question has misunderstood EPR and he is perhaps excessively optimistic about the potential of nanotechnology, but there's nothing outright absurd in his model of interstellar travel. If you don't mind the fact that the meat never leaves home, it's great. He's definitely the brightest ufologist I've ever heard of (although that's somewhat faint praise...)

However, without FTL communication over EPR channels, there's no possibility of telepresence. The probes have to be fully automatic. I'd want them to be able to enter a star system, replicate themselves a few times, refuel and move on entirely without consulting base. And I wouldn't want the replication to be entirely perfect - I'd quite like these things to evolve. It would be interesting to see, once they've covered the whole galaxy, what variants have arisen along the way.

Philosophically, is this any different from more traditional giant crewed starships? The important thing is that our descendants spread out and cover the galaxy; but need they be our biological, DNA descendants? Why not our electronic successors?

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
And even if it does, (as Martin pointed out), you cannot signal anything at faster than light speed. For any meaningful information to be passed, the receiver must have the results of a measurement made by the sender.

Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver, because the particles are always in opposite states of one another.

Bruno

Walter Wayne

17th March 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver.

Bruno The magnetic field travels at the speed of light. It is transmitted via photons.

Walt

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Martinm
By 'all the others', I assume you mean physicists? This is pretty elementary stuff.

Physicists trying to sell books! It's time to grow up Martinm...there is no such thing as backward time travel; relativity does not predict it. I've explained how time dilation works. I can't any simpler than that. You can draw all the diagrams you want; you just call the spatial configuration space-time and then think that time is some how integrated with space...No! Time is cause and effect, not space, not space-time, space is not a cause or an effect; no reactions no time. It's that simple.

Bruno

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
The magnetic field travels at the speed of light. It is transmitted via photons.Walt

Did you not get it? At the recieving end! The particle is affected FTL. So as soon as the spin state is detected at the reciever, based on the changing magentic field, we know what the senders state was.

Bruno

Jethro

17th March 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
there is no such thing as backward time travel; relativity does not predict it.You are right, there is no such thing as backwards time travel, but there is also no such thing as travel or communication at faster than the speed of light. If one of these things existed, then relativity states that the other also exists.

Walter Wayne

17th March 2003, 06:23 PM

Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum. Or why Martinm and RichardR state that you require information from the sender.

Try google. You'll find a mess of scientific papers mixed in with remote viewing and the like. If you read the scientific pages, you will understand that the measurement of the sender is done to determine "if" information was passed.

Walt

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Jethro
You are right, there is no such thing as backwards time travel, but there is also no such thing as travel or communication at faster than the speed of light. If one of these things existed, then relativity states that the other also exists.

How entanglement work's is not known, but using a propagating electromagnetic wave runs into coherence problems. The fact that you can know what both particle states are by just measuring one is information. That relationship between two particles can be used to communicate. The ability to use EPR as a communications system requires that one can store a particle indefinitely, and measure the particle without destroying it or loosing it.

And no relativity does not state that FTL realizes in backward time travel, that is your misunderstanding. Once more, time dilation is due to the increased distance between any two points due to "curved space" or motion. In FTL the distance between two points would only get larger than it already could be at the speed of light. So time just drops to zero, FTL doesn't make time go backward. It's simple trigonometry, I don’t see why so many people have such a hard time understanding time dilation!

Bruno

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum. Or why Martinm and RichardR state that you require information from the sender.
Walt

Using a technique that uses qu bit operations on the sender's particle, would not require the sender to send any information to the receiver classically. The sending particle can change states based on qu bit operations performed on it. The receiver would sense any change imparted to the sending particle; since each particle is always in the opposite state of the other.

Bruno

fishbob

17th March 2003, 06:57 PM

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Absolutely false. And therefore, the arguments that follow from this statement are also absolutely false. ( Sorry, I was a little late getting here.)

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum.
Walt

The no cloning issue is not what’s happening in EPR! The quantum states are not cloned; this is the paradox of EPR. Entangling particles is not cloning quantum states. The two particles affect each other, and affect each other in a manner that always realizes in the exact opposite state of the other. Prior to measurement neither particle has a defined state. Only when the particles are measured is the state defined. So entangle communications is not cloning quantum states.

Bruno

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by fishbob
Absolutely false. And therefore, the arguments that follow from this statement are also absolutely false. ( Sorry, I was a little late getting here.)

Not so, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would say other wise.

Bruno

DrChinese

17th March 2003, 08:13 PM

First, the ET site referenced is ridiculous. Just a bunch of speculation, doctored photos and jumbled ideas. (What does quantum entanglement have to do with Drake's Equation? The site actually claims faster than light communication has been demonstrated by scientists.)

Second, that actually makes it a good proving ground for this thread. Our "motivated assumption" being how to tell something which is ridiculous from something which is not.

Third, all theories are NOT created equal. And this is the key point. The theory about UFOs is completely ad hoc. Most of all, it has no utility. Utility is an important component of a theory. And it is a way to compare theories. (For example, if the theory had utility, it would become the basis for new types of aircraft.)

The underpinning of the UFO article is that there is a new and previously unknown science at work. I have no problem with that IF and WHEN it is ever discovered and demonstrated to the public. Such is not the case here. We may as well be discussing (since it is St. Patrick's Day) leprechauns.

A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.

RichardR

17th March 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver, because the particles are always in opposite states of one another. So what message could be sent? Can you give us an example?

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
So what message could be sent? Can you give us an example?

A one or zero.

Bruno

BrunosStar

17th March 2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese
What does quantum entanglement have to do with Drake's Equation?

The site does not correlate the two. How you managed to come to that conclusion is suspicious.

A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Like the theory of backward time travel, cone diagrams depicting the future and the past! LOL

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.

Bruno

FutileJester

17th March 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
[DrChinese]
A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Like the theory of backward time travel, cone diagrams depicting the future and the past! LOL

Why are these statements of faith? Because you find them inconvenient? I say the linked web site is a statement of faith because there are no data, no clear hypotheses, no testable predictions. The things you laugh at have all of these in plenty. They are concrete ideas that have survived the rigors of replication and peer review because they continue to make predictions more accurately than the alternatives. For me to discard the work of decades of science, I'll need something a bit more persuasive than you walking in and lauging knowingly.

Do you honestly think that there is no difference at all between a theory which has been carefully tested and challenged and reviewed and replicated, and a 'theory' based on someone thinking about things?

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.

It does not leave us with that conclusion at all. It does tell us that provability is a weaker concept than truth. Tell me, if Godel reached the conclusion that 'it's all based on faith', why did he continue to do mathematics? Why didn't math end right there as undecidable nonsense? If Godel did not, in fact, reach this conclusion from his theorem (which in fact he did not), then I have to ask why you are willing to use Godel's theorem to support your conclusion, but are not willing to accept Godel's own conclusion?

You've done this with Sagan too. Any argument from authority is weak, but to use an authority to support a position that the authority themself would not support is particularly weak.

BrunosStar

18th March 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
Why are these statements of faith? Because you find them inconvenient? I say the linked web site is a statement of faith because there are no data, no clear hypotheses, no testable predictions. The things you laugh at have all of these in plenty. They are concrete ideas that have survived the rigors of replication and peer review because they continue to make predictions more accurately than the alternatives. For me to discard the work of decades of science, I'll need something a bit more persuasive than you walking in and lauging knowingly.

Do you honestly think that there is no difference at all between a theory which has been carefully tested and challenged and reviewed and replicated, and a 'theory' based on someone thinking about things?

How many times do I have to go through the mechanics of time dilation? Get a grip man; you're doing what the religious do, acting on faith! Relativity does not predict backward time travel, Einstein never said it was possible. You meld the good science that has proven relativity as Einstein defined it, with the misinterpretations of unemployed physicists, that have turned Einstein's theory into a whore for the gullible and movie producers. And for the one thousandth time...time is cause and effect, not space, not space time! It is not a line or a path, it is not what allows events to happen, but is the actual event itself, cause and effect…. Why it’s entropic, get it?

Bruno

Stimpson J. Cat

18th March 2003, 01:27 AM

BrunoStar,

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.

I think you are misinterpreting the connotations that Goedel's incompleteness theorem has on the scientific method.

First of all, the incompleteness theorem has nothing to do with the fact that all logical systems must be based on assumptions which are not provable within the system. That is a fundamental rule of logic. My previous post (which you did not respond to) addresses why this does not constitute "taking it on faith". I'll repeat the important point here.

Even the fundamental principles of science are based on solid supporting evidence. Sure, they cannot be logically proven to be valid. No statement about reality can be logically proven to be true. All that means is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge.

The axioms of science cannot be logically proven. Nothing about reality can be logically proven. But like any scientific theory, those axioms are not taken on faith. They are accepted only because they have substantial reliable supporting evidence.

That said, what Goedel's incompleteness theorem tells us is that it is possible to construct statements within a formal logical framework, whose truth value cannot be derived from the axioms of that framework. An example is the question of whether there are infinite cardinalities between aleph-null (the cardinality of the set of natural numbers), and c (the cardinality of the set of real numbers). The answer to this question cannot be derived from the axioms of arithmetic.

What this means for science is that no matter how much we know, there will always be we can ask whose answers cannot be logically derived from what we already know. I fail to see how this has anything to do with faith. In fact, to take an answer to any of those questions on faith, would be very unscientific. There are many questions which can be asked about the physical World, whose answers cannot be logically derived from what we already know. That is one of the reasons why we do scientific research. It would, of course, be nonsensical to simply pick a possible answer, and then accept it on faith, rather than attempting to empirically verify it.

Dr. Stupid

BrunosStar

18th March 2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
It would, of course, be nonsensical to simply pick a possible answer, and then accept it on faith, rather than attempting to empirically verify it.
Dr. Stupid

I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site. If the site claimed something ordinary like being barked at by dog, there wouldn't be any problem. So if something really usual were to happen to some one, despite that they can describe it to you, right down to the science that was used, you'd find it hard to believe. But despite your faith that it didn't happen, because that's all you have to rely on, since you have no more evidence of what happened to the individual than the individual has, we can not prove one way or another as to what actually happened.

Bruno

Stimpson J. Cat

18th March 2003, 02:50 AM

BrunoStar,

I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site.

I don't believe any claim without reliable evidence. That doesn't mean that without reliable evidence, I automatically believe the claim is false.

If the site claimed something ordinary like being barked at by dog, there wouldn't be any problem.

How do you mean? If you tell me you barked at by a dog yesterday, I am not going to claim that you are lying, but neither am I going to automatically reject the possibility that you are. As always, I will make a probabilistic assessment based on the available evidence.

So if something really usual were to happen to some one, despite that they can describe it to you, right down to the science that was used, you'd find it hard to believe.

I would assign a low probability to it.

But despite your faith that it didn't happen, because that's all you have to rely on, since you have no more evidence of what happened to the individual than the individual has, we can not prove one way or another as to what actually happened.

I have no faith that it did not happen. That would be irrational. If the evidence indicates that it is very likely that it happened, then I will believe it happened. If the evidence indicates that it is very unlikely that it happened, then I will believe that it did not. If the evidence is not overwhelmingly pointing towards one or the other, then I simply say that I do not know.

Faith never enters into it. Faith is irrational.

Dr. Stupid

MRC_Hans

18th March 2003, 03:41 AM

Bruno
I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site. You can say that again. I for one am not willing to believe whats being claimed on the site you linked to. Why? Because it is full of pseudoscience and nonsense.

A few examples:While you may challenge my claims lack evidence, you can not deny the plausibility of my arguments on the basis of the science that I use to describe ET Translation: I have no evidence, but my fiction is logically built. -- Well, thats great. For fiction.

Forget everything you've ever heard about UFOs and ETs, the real truth is much more frightening. Uhh, what real truth? He just admitted he had no evidence.

As you can see this vehicle is not from earth. Interestingly enough the vessel is not capable of interstellar or interplanetary flight. It is strictly used for terrestrial purposes, why it's called a Surveyor. It can reach speeds up to 7000 mph and accelerate at over 75 Gs within 10 seconds! Caption below a number of evidently artifical pictures. The pictures show an oval object in a number of different settings. In some of the pictures, a rough estimate of the size of the object can be deduced, and it varies greatly. The vehicly is certainly not from Earth. In fact it is not at all.

Then comes a "technical explanation" on another page. It is almost completely balooney. Not even good fiction, because it postulates all sorts of funny things. Like that the "empty spaces" in nanostructures provide lift; even solid steel is mostly empty space, but the lift is not very apparent :rolleyes: .

It also claims that by heating one end of the cigar (or saucer), air will be pushed away from it, creating propulsion. Rather strange that this simple system should have eluded the aerospace industry for over a century!

And it is said to be able to accelerate at 75G. I hope they bolted the instruments inside down really well!

Well, I stopped there. No, I don't want to believe what the site says. I see no reason to.

Hans

RichardR

18th March 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

A one or zero.

Bruno OK, suppose I want to send a “one”. How do I do that?

DrChinese

18th March 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

The site does not correlate the two. How you managed to come to that conclusion is suspicious.

Bruno

Nothing suspicious here. The reference site puts forth the theory that ET has been to earth via pea-sized spacecraft containing advanced nano-technology. According to the theory posited, this was necessary because ET used Drake's equation to determine this was the only way to communicate with other civilizations.

Hey, I'm not the one making this up!

Anyway, I am certainly will to consider a theory which has been "thought up". I call such a theory an ad hoc theory because it was designed to fit the facts. Technically, there is nothing wrong with this.

However, this particular theory falls apart immediately. First and foremost, it has absolutely no utility. I.e. solves no known problems, generates no testable predictions, etc. Second, and typical of many ad hoc theories (but not all), it assumes facts which are contested. Specifically, I deny that there is any evidence that ET has been to earth.

So I don't think the purpose of this thread is to debate the actual validity of the referenced site's material. I think the question is: what is theory, and what is faith? Is there a difference?

I certainly agree that theory cannot be derived from logic, i.e. is not provable. It shares that with faith-based assumptions. But how are they different?

FutileJester

18th March 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site.

Absolutely. Tell me why I should be willing to believe it? I can find literally thousands of sites which make completely different claims about the same subject matter. You obviously feel that this one site is correct, while all or most of those others are wrong. How is this determination made? Why do you choose this explanation over others?

Martin

18th March 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

And no relativity does not state that FTL realizes in backward time travel, that is your misunderstanding. Once more, time dilation is due to the increased distance between any two points due to "curved space" or motion. In FTL the distance between two points would only get larger than it already could be at the speed of light. So time just drops to zero, FTL doesn't make time go backward. It's simple trigonometry, I don’t see why so many people have such a hard time understanding time dilation!

I was wondering the same thing myself. From the principle of relativity and the postulate that the speed of light in vacuo is the same in all inertial frames of reference, one can derive the Lorentz transformations. From the Lorentz transformations follows the invariance of a quantity imaginatively named the invariant interval. From the invariance of this interval follows the relation between FTL and causality. This is simple stuff - I can take you through it step by step, if you like.

So, which do you have a problem with - the principle of relativity? Or the invariance of lightspeed in inertial frames?

BillyJoe

19th March 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
...I can find literally thousands of sites which make completely different claims about the same subject matter. You obviously feel that this one site is correct, while all or most of those others are wrong....Why do you choose this explanation over others? Excellent question.

Forget discussing physics with Bruno, he obviously doesn't have a clue.
He just answers sensible questions about his nonsense with more nonsense.

So, Bruno, why is this one particular site correct and the thousands of other sites false?

RichardR

21st March 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by RichardR
OK, suppose I want to send a “one”. How do I do that?
The answer to this question is clearly arriving at less than the speed of light.

BrunosStar

21st March 2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
OK, suppose I want to send a “one”. How do I do that?

You perform a qubit operation on the particle at station A, which then would be reflected by entangled particle at station B. The two particles always measure as opposites. Remember that both particles are stored and when measured are not destroyed or lost.

Bruno

RichardR

21st March 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
You perform a qubit operation on the particle at station A, which then would be reflected by entangled particle at station B. The two particles always measure as opposites. Remember that both particles are stored and when measured are not destroyed or lost.Yes, but how do you send a "one"?

To explain. I realize that whatever the measurement at station A, the measurement at station B will always be the opposite. Suppose I want to send a faster than light signal. I have a code agreed with the recipient. If I send a “one”, it means (for arguments sake), Attack – kill the death star (or something). If I want them to retreat I will send a “zero”.

I want them to attack. How do I send a “one”?

BrunosStar

21st March 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Then comes a "technical explanation" on another page. It is almost completely balooney. Not even good fiction, because it postulates all sorts of funny things. Like that the "empty spaces" in nanostructures provide lift; even solid steel is mostly empty space, but the lift is not very apparent

What part of buoyancy don't you understand? The site specifically states that the carbon silicone composite material is formed into hollow spheres; the spheres are then used to form a sierpinski gasket. This construction makes for a very efficient use of mass, dropping the density of matter used by 90%. Do you get it now?

It also claims that by heating one end of the cigar (or saucer), air will be pushed away from it, creating propulsion. Rather strange that this simple system should have eluded the aerospace industry for over a century!

Did you understand anything about the energy source and why our designs of any type of low speed jet engine requires a turbo fan? Most of the thrust of a jet engine comes from the fan. The power plant of the saucer is explained on the site, it's basically electrical. We could only derive the energy needed chemically from an explosive reaction, which then turns the turbine that rotates a fan. The fan is also used to supply the chemical reaction with oxygen, without the fan sucking air the chemical reaction would suffocate, why ram jets don't work at low speeds.If you can produce a power source that can move air, whether it is fan or a heat source it will propel it. In the case of the saucer the heated source is accelerating air off the edge of its surface, where the oval shape acts as an inverted nozzle. NASA is planning on using inverted nozzle technology, but the energy source, sadly, will still be a chemical explosion.

Bruno

BrunosStar

21st March 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
Yes, but how do you send a "one"?

Wow...where have you been, do you understand how a binary computer works? You can simply set up a code that depicts one spin state as 1 and another as 0.

Bruno

BrunosStar

21st March 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Martinm
So, which do you have a problem with - the principle of relativity? Or the invariance of lightspeed in inertial frames?

Please go through your explanation, so I see where you're thinking is wrong. There's no backward time travel, period, even with FTL.

Bruno

RichardR

21st March 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Wow...where have you been, do you understand how a binary computer works? You can simply set up a code that depicts one spin state as 1 and another as 0.
I’ll try and make the question easier for you to understand, then.

I decide I want to send a “one”. However, the spin state of the electron at station A is unknown until it is measured. I measure it, and it can be either up or down – I don’t know which until I have measured it, but as soon as I do, the electron at station B will show spin in the opposite direction.

How do I send a “one”?

BrunosStar

21st March 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
How do I send a “one”?

Do you understand anything about quantum computing? If you did you'd know that you can work the probabilites of quantum states to get whatever state you need.

Bruno

RichardR

21st March 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Do you understand anything about quantum computing? If you did you'd know that you can work the probabilites of quantum states to get whatever state you need.
Are you saying that you can determine the spin of the electron before you measure it?

To be clear – I measure the spin of the electron. It has a 50% probability of being up spin, a 50% probability of being down spin. But I don’t know which, until I measure it. So are you saying that you can know whether it is an up or a down before you measure it?

How is this possible if the electron is in a supposition of states before it is measured?

And how would you do this?

BrunosStar

21st March 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by RichardR

Are you saying that you can determine the spin of the electron before you measure it?

To be clear – I measure the spin of the electron. It has a 50% probability of being up spin, a 50% probability of being down spin. But I don’t know which, until I measure it. So are you saying that you can know whether it is an up or a down before you measure it?

How is this possible if the electron is in a supposition of states before it is measured?

And how would you do this?

Almost, it's more like knowing what an outcome will be when you've set up a scenario that will have interactions with other particles. You see you can polarize spin states and therefore produce a yield of particles with up spin or down spin. These particles or particle can then be combined with our entangled particle that can force an outcome of spin up or down, depending on how we prepared the environment. Below is a link that explains quantum dots and quantum computing in more detail.

http://www.unibas.ch/diss/2001/DabsB_5668.pdf

Bruno

BrunosStar

21st March 2003, 07:46 PM

BrunosStar

21st March 2003, 07:46 PM

Martin

21st March 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Please go through your explanation, so I see where you're thinking is wrong. There's no backward time travel, period, even with FTL

Postulate 1 - the speed of light in vacuo takes the same value in all inertial reference frames

Postulate 2 - All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments

We shall work in units where c = 1

Consider two frames of reference, A and B. In A, time is labelled by t and position in space by x, y and z. In B, the labels are t', x', y' and z'. Let B travel with constant velocity v with respect to A in the positive x-direction. Let the origins and axes of A and B coincide at a time taken to be t = t' = 0. Then y = y' and z = z' for all t, t'.

Now, the x-coordinate of the origin of B is given by

x = vt

By postulate 2 (think about it)

t = gt'

for some constant g.

Then, on the path of the origin of B, we have

t + x = g(1 + v)(t' + x') (1)
t - x = g(1 - v)(t' - x') (2)

So far, these relations hold only for the case x = vt. Clearly they hold for any point where this is true, regardless of the values of y or z.

Now, suppose we ride along with the origin of B, currently at location x = X and time t = T = vX. We want to signal an observer sitting at a location x = X', where X' > X. And we want that signal to arrive at a particular time t = T' where T' > T. Recalling that c = 1, we see that this is possible iff

(X' - X) = (T' - T) = (T' - vX)

Given values for X' and T' this has a unique solution for X (and therefore T = vX). Thus for an arbitrary point X', T' there is precisely one point on the path of B's origin from which we may send our signal. Along the path of this signal, we know that

dx/dt = 1

which implies

dx = dt

Thus at any arbitrary point in space and at any arbitrary time equation (1) holds. Repeating the above analysis for an arbitrary point X' < X, arbitrary time T' > T, shows that (2) holds for any point in space and time.

The roles of the two frames may be reversed by substituting t' <-> t, x' <-> x and v -> -v. (1) then becomes

t' + x' = g(1 - v)(t + x)

which again holds at any point in space and time. Substituting this back into (1) yields g = (1 - v^2)^(-1/2)
Adding and subtracting (1) and (2) gives (in differential form)

dt = g(dt' + vdx')
dx = g(vdt' + dx')
dy = dy'
dz = dz'

These are the Lorentz transformations - the basis of special relativity. They can be inverted to give

dt' = g(dt - vdx)
dx' = g(-vdt + dx)
dy' = dy
dz' = dz

Now, let us define a quantity as measured in one inertial reference frame by

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

and apply the Lorentz transformations to find the value of this quantity in some arbitrary inertial reference frame -

ds^2 = [g(dt' + vdx')]^2 - [g(vdt' + dx')]^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

= g^2(dt'^2 + v^2dx'^2 + 2vdt'dx' - v^2dt'^2 - dx'^2 - 2vdt'dx') - dy^2 - dz^2

= dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2

= ds'^2

So this quantity is the same in all inertial reference frames - it is invariant. Because of this, we may use this quantity to classify the interval separating two points in space and time. If ds > 0, the interval is said to be timelike. If ds < 0, the interval is said to be spacelike. If ds = 0, the interval is said to be null.

Let's simplify and consider the 1D case. Then for null intervals, we have

dt^2 = dx^2

-> | dx/dt | = 1

So two points separated by a null interval may only be connected by a light signal. Similarly, for timelike intervals

| dx/dt | < 1

and for spacelike intervals

| dx/dt | > 1

So two points separated by a spacelike interval may only be connected by an FTL signal.

Now, let's go back to the inverse Lorentz transformation -

dt' = g(dt - vdx)

= gdt(1 - v dx/dt)

= gdt(1 - v/u)

where | u | = | dt/dx | < 1 for spacelike separations
Thus for 1 > | v | > | u | , the sign of dt' will be opposite that of dt, and the ordering of the two events will be reversed. Observers in inertial frames moving at velocities greater than | u | with respect to each other will disagree on which event occured first, and so on whether an FTL signal sent from one to the other propagated forwards or backwards in time.

QED

Denise

21st March 2003, 09:21 PM

Yeah! What Martin said! Ok, I actually have no idea what Martin said. But hey, I'm here to learn!:D

Denise

21st March 2003, 09:21 PM

double post

rwald

21st March 2003, 09:38 PM

The term I've invented to describe posts such as the one Martinm just made is "supercranial." Think about it.

Personally, I prefer the train example to show that relativity prevents any universally-recognized sequence of events. (Not that this necessarily has any bearing on what Martinm said. I really don't know either way.) Imagine a train car with a table down the middle of it. Two diplomats are at the ends of the table, one at the front end (with respect to the train's motion) and one at the rear end. A light bulb has been placed in the middle of the table, and the diplomats agree to sign a treaty as soon as they see the light. In their reference frame, they sign the treaty at the same time, since they're both equally distant from the bulb and c is constant. However, for someone watching the train from the station, the person in the rear signed the treaty first. Since the car was moving from the time the bulb turned on to the time it reached the diplomats, it traveled a different distance for each. And since c is still constant, that means that the diplomat in the rear saw the light first.

Though this seems to be a paradox, such is the world governed by relativity.

RichardR

22nd March 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Almost, it's more like knowing what an outcome will be when you've set up a scenario that will have interactions with other particles. You see you can polarize spin states and therefore produce a yield of particles with up spin or down spin. These particles or particle can then be combined with our entangled particle that can force an outcome of spin up or down, depending on how we prepared the environment. Below is a link that explains quantum dots and quantum computing in more detail.

http://www.unibas.ch/diss/2001/DabsB_5668.pdfYour referenced article crashed my browser every time I looked at anything other than the abstract. And that did not cover forcing an outcome of spin.

Can you please explain, in plain words, how one forces the entangled particle into an up or a down spin?

FutileJester

22nd March 2003, 08:16 PM

BrunosStar,

Forget all the relativity and quantum computing for a minute, and let's go back to a previous unanswered question. Why this explanation? Why not any of the other explanations about possible ET life? When there is no evidence, on what do you base your belief?

BillyJoe

22nd March 2003, 09:47 PM

BJ is with you FJ. What do you say BS? :cool:

BrunosStar

22nd March 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Martinm
Thus for 1 > | v | > | u | , the sign of dt' will be opposite that of dt, and the ordering of the two events will be reversed. Observers in inertial frames moving at velocities greater than | u | with respect to each other will disagree on which event occured first, and so on whether an FTL signal sent from one to the other propagated forwards or backwards in time.QED

So you're saying because sign of the result of the expression is reversed for velocities greater than c means you traveled back in time? What you've just described is the effect of two clocks, each running at different rates, measuring the same event. In effect you confuse causality with the ability to collect information.

Given a frame and an EPR transmission system. The transmitter is triggered by the interval of one second from an ordinary clock. The receiver turns on a light indicating the transmission has been received. Every time you run this experiment the EPR receiver appears to have turned on the light before the clock ticked! This is because we would see the light from the EPR receiver before our clock could tell us it ticked. If we measured the difference in time it would always be negative with respect to our clock. It has nothing to do with causality; it has every thing to do with who gets there first! Even the equations you expressed show this to be true, the slower clock reads a negative time when compared to the faster clock. But the event never happened back in time, it happen faster than the instruments could detect the event! It would surely seem like things were happening in our past, but they're happening faster than we can sense them.

To give you a more classical example; if we use a radio transmitter and a speaker to communicate the clock tick, we would experience the same effect. The light would turn on before we would hear the speaker sound. If we measured the time between the sound reaching our ears and the light reaching our eyes it would be negative.

Bottom line all the Lorentz transforms or cone diagrams aren't going to change the very basic premise of time dilation. Time is cause and effect, time dilation is due to the increased separation between any two points in a frame where there is motion or gravity. The increased length of the path of any reaction slows the rate of that reaction when compared to other frames that have less gravity (flatter space) or slower motion. Given a scenario of FTL the distance between any two points would be even greater than that of the speed of light, reactions that happen at the speed of light would not happen, time would stop.

Hate to burn your QED, but your mistake was not realizing you are collecting information with a slower clock.

Bruno

BrunosStar

22nd March 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
Can you please explain, in plain words, how one forces the entangled particle into an up or a down spin?

Filter for electrons with a particular spin. You must have a trapped entangled particle, a storage device if you will. The trap is such that, the polarized electrons with spin x, are applied to the stored particle. Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, the electron in the trap will be forced to the spin that is opposite of the polarized electron.

That’s as basic and as plain as I can make.

Bruno

FutileJester

22nd March 2003, 11:57 PM

Well BillyJoe, I tried. Looks like BrunosStar is going to continue to ignore what should be an easy question. I guess the Raelians were right about those Ouranos believers; I should have trusted them from the beginning. :p

RichardR

23rd March 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Filter for electrons with a particular spin. You must have a trapped entangled particle, a storage device if you will. The trap is such that, the polarized electrons with spin x, are applied to the stored particle. Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, the electron in the trap will be forced to the spin that is opposite of the polarized electron.That's clear, thanks.

Has this actually been successfully tested, so that a preordained value (a “one”, for example) has been sent and received faster than light?

Martin

23rd March 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
So you're saying because sign of the result of the expression is reversed for velocities greater than c means you traveled back in time?

Not exactly. I'm saying that for two events separated by spacelike intervals observers travelling wrt each other at greater than a critical velocity will disagree on which event happened first.

Given a frame and an EPR transmission system. The transmitter is triggered by the interval of one second from an ordinary clock. The receiver turns on a light indicating the transmission has been received. Every time you run this experiment the EPR receiver appears to have turned on the light before the clock ticked!

Apples and oranges. What you describe occurs in a single frame of reference. Knowing the speed of light and that of the ftl signal, one could calculate the exact times at which each event occured, regardless of the order in which they are seen to occur. All observers in that frame of reference would agree on the results. It is those results to which my calculations refer.

Even the equations you expressed show this to be true, the slower clock reads a negative time when compared to the faster clock

Slower clock? Faster clock? Which is which?

Bottom line all the Lorentz transforms or cone diagrams aren't going to change the very basic premise of time dilation

A bizarre statement, given that time dilation is a consequence derived from the Lorentz transformations.

As to your previous assertions that Einstein never drew the conclusion I have, get hold of a copy of his paper On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn From It. Makes for interesting reading.

BrunosStar

23rd March 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester
BrunosStar,
Forget all the relativity and quantum computing for a minute, and let's go back to a previous unanswered question. Why this explanation? Why not any of the other explanations about possible ET life? When there is no evidence, on what do you base your belief?

The explanation on the site solves some critical problems for an ET to be here.

1. How does ET find us amongst billions of stars?
2. How does ET overcome the problems of the energy to reach some reasonable speed of light?
3. Given that the "project" of exploring the galaxy would take hundreds of thousands of years. How does ET solve the economic and social incentive issues?

Because Ouranosism answers those questions, the belief or the entertaining, of the ET issue is can be taken little more seriously. As oppose to other UFO explanations that do not answer those questions.

Bruno

BrunosStar

23rd March 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Martinm
Not exactly. I'm saying that for two events separated by spacelike intervals observers travelling wrt each other at greater than a critical velocity will disagree on which event happened first.

Then we're on the same page. There is no time travel, as in the movie "The Time Machine".

Bruno

Denise

23rd March 2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

The explanation on the site solves some critical problems for an ET to be here.

1. How does ET find us amongst billions of stars?
2. How does ET overcome the problems of the energy to reach some reasonable speed of light?
3. Given that the "project" of exploring the galaxy would take hundreds of thousands of years. How does ET solve the economic and social incentive issues?

Because Ouranosism answers those questions, the belief or the entertaining, of the ET issue is can be taken little more seriously. As oppose to other UFO explanations that do not answer those questions.

Bruno

I can answer these questions just as well. And without any support for my theories! Watch
1. Because they have a special ET dowsing rod! Serious!
2. Because they can apparate like in Harry Potter books. I've seen it yep!
3. Obviously, ET has "evolved" into a utopian society. Duh!

I have answered the questions! Do I get a brownie or something? And my answers are supported by many people! How can so many be wrong? They cannot!

BrunosStar

23rd March 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Denise

I can answer these questions just as well. And without any support for my theories! Watch
1. Because they have a special ET dowsing rod! Serious!
2. Because they can apparate like in Harry Potter books. I've seen it yep!
3. Obviously, ET has "evolved" into a utopian society. Duh!

I have answered the questions! Do I get a brownie or something? And my answers are supported by many people! How can so many be wrong? They cannot!

You may be able to answer the questions with nonsense, but you couldn't answer them with a solution that is based on observed physics. Remember the site does say the explanation is based on physcis that has been observed and documented by science.

Bruno

RichardR

24th March 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by RichardR
That's clear, thanks.

Has this actually been successfully tested, so that a preordained value (a “one”, for example) has been sent and received faster than light? Bruno:

Can you tell me if this has ever been tested?

Thanks

FutileJester

24th March 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Because Ouranosism answers those questions, the belief or the entertaining, of the ET issue is can be taken little more seriously. As oppose to other UFO explanations that do not answer those questions.

You say 'take a little more seriously', but that's a very soft version of the language used on the site. This site is promoted as 'the truth'. It claims that ET contact either has happened or inevitably will happen (although most of the site strongly implies that it has already happened). Ouranosism is not saying 'this could be'; it is saying 'this is'. That's simply far to strong of a statement to make about anything for which there is no evidence. We don't even have a unified theory of physics yet; how can we possibly say with certainty what ET life will be like?

What is your position on the truth of the statements of Ouranosism? Does it represent the way things are? Does it represent the way things must be? Or does it represent one of many ideas supported by plausible physics?

If the latter, we basically agree, although I would quibble on some of the details. But this is certainly not the position implied by the Ouranos site. If the site were intended to be speculative, then it would be tolerant of other speculations and wouldn't bandy about words like 'truth'. If it's not speculative, then it's pure religion, in that it promotes the truth while offering no evidence.

In short, plausible does not equal true. I've read hard sci fi stories that are at least as plausible as Ouranos. They're fun, and I prefer the ones that are well grounded in science. But that doesn't mean they're true.

Martin

24th March 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Then we're on the same page. There is no time travel, as in the movie "The Time Machine"

I don't think we are, you know. If we cannot determine which of two events occurred first, but it is possible to send a signal from one to the other, it is entirely possible for effect to precede cause. And we haven't even got into CTC's yet.

BrunosStar

24th March 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Martinm
I don't think we are, you know. If we cannot determine which of two events occurred first, but it is possible to send a signal from one to the other, it is entirely possible for effect to precede cause. And we haven't even got into CTC's yet.

Not at all, first of all, other than the FTL signal, such as EPR, is moving faster than light. EPR can affect a partnered entangled particle FTL, but the ability to detect the change can only happen classically. By this I mean the recieving entangled particle communciates the change at c. So the cause is always preceding the effect. The ability to detect it is happening at a much slower rate of c (the slower clock).

Even under your scenario, the cause sends the effect on both ends, so if one doesn't send a signal the other will not sense anything. If both do not send a signal, neither will sense a signal. So cause always precedes effect, only trying to discern juxtaposition in relation to some reference cannot be determine.

Bruno

garys_2k

24th March 2003, 11:54 AM

Maybe I'm too slow to grasp the implications of this entangled particle thing, so let me ask a couple of questions.

First, it seems that the proposal is to prep a batch of particle pairs and separate them. One half the batch goes into the rocket and is blasted 50 light years away, the other half stays with me. I now have at my end a pile of 1's and 0's, with their partners far, far away.

I set some sort of trap that sorts my particles into two piles, with all the 1's in one pile and the 0's in the other. Is this right?

Assuming it is, I want to send a message to my rocket, but I want to do it NOW. I want to send a "1-1-0-0" through entaglement radio. So, I reach into my two piles and open up a pair of 0's and a pair of 1's, sending the complimentary message across sapce-time to their partners. Is this right?

If so, then what happens at the distant end? How do they know which half of THEIR particles to interrogate? Do they constantly sift them, trying to ascertain their spins, waiting to get my possible message? If so, how can they tell my message from the noise?

I assume the distant end has either two piles of particles, corresponding (oppositely) to mine, or a batch of mixed particles. In either case, how do they know the right ones to interrogate?

BrunosStar

24th March 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by RichardR
Bruno:

Can you tell me if this has ever been tested?

Thanks

As far as I know not yet. I believe that setting up the atomic size structures need for this to work is still beyond our technical grasp.

Bruno

BrunosStar

24th March 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by garys_2k
I set some sort of trap that sorts my particles into two piles, with all the 1's in one pile and the 0's in the other. Is this right?

Not quite right. What you can do is control a polarizer for up or down spin and sift through a stream of electrons. The resultant yield can be applied to the entangled particle.

If so, then what happens at the distant end? How do they know which half of THEIR particles to interrogate? Do they constantly sift them, trying to ascertain their spins, waiting to get my possible message? If so, how can they tell my message from the noise?

You can detect the different spins states by the variation of the resultant magnetic field. As far as differentiating from noise, you have to hold the electron spin state for a predetermined time. Very similar to Morse code or the serial port on your PC.

It's best to use each entangled pair as a one way channel. So you'd need two sets, one for mission control to transmit to the rocket and one for the rocket to transmit to mission control.

Bruno

RichardR

24th March 2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
As far as I know not yet. I believe that setting up the atomic size structures need for this to work is still beyond our technical grasp. That's what I thought.

It'll be interesting when they do figure it out, though. :)

garys_2k

24th March 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

Not quite right. What you can do is control a polarizer for up or down spin and sift through a stream of electrons. The resultant yield can be applied to the entangled particle.

OK, so there's a stream of electrons at both ends? How do I keep track of all these individual electrons? IOW, how can I be sure that the guy on the rocket is looking at the right electron, the one who's brother I just saw the spin for?

You can detect the different spins states by the variation of the resultant magnetic field. As far as differentiating from noise, you have to hold the electron spin state for a predetermined time. Very similar to Morse code or the serial port on your PC.

It's best to use each entangled pair as a one way channel. So you'd need two sets, one for mission control to transmit to the rocket and one for the rocket to transmit to mission control.

Bruno
Right, I understand the need to keep a synchronized stream going, but you'd have to do way more than that, right? You'd have to keep track of INDIVIDUAL electrons, right? In other words, get them entagled at the beginning (with both halves on earth) and then separate them, half going on the ship. You'd then get both parties watching the individual electrons that were entagled for a possible message, but how would you keep the streams so perfectly synchronized? This is for one-half of the full setup, for one-way communications.

BrunosStar

24th March 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by garys_2k
OK, so there's a stream of electrons at both ends? How do I keep track of all these individual electrons? IOW, how can I be sure that the guy on the rocket is looking at the right electron, the one who's brother I just saw the spin for?

You don't have to keep track of individual electrons; the receiver can work asynchronously. You see the polarizer is the mechanism that's doing the encoding. The receiver only needs to sense for a changed state. So if you encode a zero, and say the entangled particle was already set to one, it will flip. That change will cause the receiver’s particle to change (shift) its magnetic flux, that can induce a small current at the receiver. If the sending particle was already set to zero, then the receiver knows, that if the state hasn't changed, to continue to count off zeros.

You also have to realize that there's a higher-level protocol that is sensing for patterns and doing error checking, using some kind of character redundancy code.

Bruno

garys_2k

25th March 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

You don't have to keep track of individual electrons; the receiver can work asynchronously. You see the polarizer is the mechanism that's doing the encoding. The receiver only needs to sense for a changed state. So if you encode a zero, and say the entangled particle was already set to one, it will flip. That change will cause the receiver’s particle to change (shift) its magnetic flux, that can induce a small current at the receiver. If the sending particle was already set to zero, then the receiver knows, that if the state hasn't changed, to continue to count off zeros.

You also have to realize that there's a higher-level protocol that is sensing for patterns and doing error checking, using some kind of character redundancy code.

Bruno
I think I understand the operation of the transmitter and receiver, I think. But I don't see why you wouldn't have to keep track of individual electrons, plus another problem:

First, regarding the individual particles, if I have a total of 1,000 entangled pairs to work with, with 1,000 individuals at each end, if the two streams weren't kept synchronized how would I know that the one I just attempted to flip at the transmit end wasn't entangled with the one I just got done looking at at the receiver end? IOW, are you saying that all 1,000 electrons, on each end, are entangled with each other some how?

The other question (assuming I'm working with entangled particles), from your explanation above it sounds like if I encode a 0 at the transmit end it will make the entangled particle at the receiver end flip only if it was already set to a 1. IOW, it will either flip, or not, depending on its (unknown) initial state. So my sending a zero could randomly cause either a flip to zero or no change (to remain at zero) on the receiver.

If this is the case, what would a person looking at the receiver see? If they saw an electron flip to zero they could assume I'd deliberately sent it, that's fine. But what if they saw a zero electron go through without being flipped? Would they assume that a zero was sent, or that nothing was sent? How could they unequivocally know that information was being sent and the non-flip didn't represent nothing going on at the transmit end?

BrunosStar

25th March 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by garys_2k
First, regarding the individual particles, if I have a total of 1,000 entangled pairs to work with, with 1,000 individuals at each end, if the two streams weren't kept synchronized how would I know that the one I just attempted to flip at the transmit end wasn't entangled with the one I just got done looking at at the receiver end? IOW, are you saying that all 1,000 electrons, on each end, are entangled with each other some how?

You still haven't got it quite right. The entangled particle pair is a single set, not a stream of particles. Why I mentioned that with this apporach to teleporation, the measuring of the particle can not destroy or loose it.

You see the stream of electrons is used to filter for a code state. Because the particle's spin state is random when mesured, we have to set up an environment where we can resolve the randomness and force a state. The only way that can be done is to measure an electron from the stream. The particle that ends up polarizing from the stream, by our filter, is applied to our stored entangled particle. Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, it forces the entangled particle to the opposite spin of the filtered particle.

So it's not the stream that is entangled. The stream is used so as to end up with and electron with spin x and apply it to our entangled particle. By changing the polarization of the filter we can change states dynamically. This way we can encode the single stored entangled particle from the electron stream.

Bruno

FutileJester

26th March 2003, 05:43 AM

This quantum computing stuff is interesting, but as far as the original topic goes, it changes nothing. Ouranos is religion wrapped in a thin veneer of science.

BrunosStar, your original post implied that all knowledge is based on faith. I deny this. Your knowledge is based on faith, mine on evidence. Do you agree that there is a difference? If not, why?

And I'll ask again - do you believe that Ouranosism represents the truth? Failing to make your position clear on the central topic of a thread you started is suspicious. Surely this is an easy question?

garys_2k

26th March 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

You still haven't got it quite right. The entangled particle pair is a single set, not a stream of particles. Why I mentioned that with this apporach to teleporation, the measuring of the particle can not destroy or loose it.

You see the stream of electrons is used to filter for a code state. Because the particle's spin state is random when mesured, we have to set up an environment where we can resolve the randomness and force a state. The only way that can be done is to measure an electron from the stream. The particle that ends up polarizing from the stream, by our filter, is applied to our stored entangled particle. Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, it forces the entangled particle to the opposite spin of the filtered particle.

So it's not the stream that is entangled. The stream is used so as to end up with and electron with spin x and apply it to our entangled particle. By changing the polarization of the filter we can change states dynamically. This way we can encode the single stored entangled particle from the electron stream.

Bruno Man, I apologize, I'm really feeling thick. How's this?

Step one, I entagle a pair of particle pairs and split 'em up, with one going on the spacecraft and the other staying home. Let's call the particle at home the transmitters and the spaceship's particle the receiver.

Step two. I get a stream of electrons going and cause one of them to resolve its spin state, then apply THIS electron to my stored half-pair electron, right? This application may (or may not) do something to my stored electron, depending on ITS state. But, in either case, I now know that stored electron's state and, therefore, the state of the other half of the pair on the spaceship.

Is this right so far?

Also, what happens to the other half of my entangled pair, the one on the spaceship?

Martin

26th March 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Not at all, first of all, other than the FTL signal, such as EPR, is moving faster than light

It doesn't have to. Let me see if I can summarise the argument -

Different observers will disagree on the time ordering of events A and B connected by a spacelike separation
Relativity does not allow us to say that one set of observers is right and the other is wrong
This is not a problem if information cannot travel faster than c, since events A and B cannot possibly be causally related
If, however, FTL signalling is possible, it follows that A and B could be causally related - say, a signal sent from A produces an effect at B
But since B precedes A in certain frames of reference, the effect will precede the cause
This cannot be dismissed as an illusion, since the principle of relativity forbids us to assign precedence to any inertial observer

EPR can affect a partnered entangled particle FTL, but the ability to detect the change can only happen classically. By this I mean the recieving entangled particle communciates the change at c

That doesn't come into it. Even if one of the observers was sitting right at the transmitter and the other right at the receiver, the same issue would arise.

phobos

27th March 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by garys_2k
Man, I apologize, I'm really feeling thick. How's this?

Step one, I entagle a pair of particle pairs and split 'em up, with one going on the spacecraft and the other staying home. Let's call the particle at home the transmitters and the spaceship's particle the receiver.

Right so far. The two particles are in a Bell state

|10> + |01>
-----------
sqrt(2)

which effectively means that they're either |1> and |0>, or |0> and |1>, but nothing else. sqrt(2) is a normalisation factor, to make the probability that it's one or the other equal to one.

Step two. I get a stream of electrons going and cause one of them to resolve its spin state, then apply THIS electron to my stored half-pair electron, right? This application may (or may not) do something to my stored electron, depending on ITS state. But, in either case, I now know that stored electron's state and, therefore, the state of the other half of the pair on the spaceship.

Here is where I think is the critical flaw in Bruno's scheme. He hasn't made it quite clear what he means by 'applying' the |1> polarised electron to the entangled one. Apparently he means to somehow bring them close together and force the entangled electron to assume the quantum state of the polarised electron.

In the teleportation experiments that have been done, we combine the qubit we mean to transmit with the entangled qubit in a more complicated way. Let's suppose that the qubit we mean to send is a|0> + b|1>, to be more general - why restrict ourselves to classical bits when we have quantum technology available?

In this method we 'apply' the qubit we mean to transmit to our entangled qubit using a CNOT gate, a quantum analogue of the classical XOR. A physical realisation of it is here (http://hampshire.edu/lspector/aaai-99-www/sld028.htm), though it uses polarised photons rather than electrons as its qubits.

The CNOT gate flips the state of the object qubit if the control qubit is a |1>. So in applying the CNOT using the qubit we mean to transmit as our control qubit and the entangled qubit at our end as the object qubit, we have gone from a state

[a |0> ( |01> + |10>) + b |1> ( |01> + |10> ) ] / (sqrt 2)

to

[a |0> ( |01> + |10> ) + b|1> ( |11> + |00> ) ] / (sqrt 2)

I then make use of another handy quantum gadget, the Hadamard gate, to finish the job of combining the qubits. The Hadamard gate is constructed from a whole lot of mirrors and beam splitters, and its effect is to turn a |0> + b |1> into

[ a ( |0> + |1> ) + b ( |0> - |1> ) ] / sqrt(2)

It's effectively a matrix rotation, though physically building the thing is a little tricky. I believe the best results have been achieved using NMR devices rather than polarised photons or electrons. What physical structure you use depends entirely on what you're using for qubits.

Now we've done all this, the combined state of the three qubits - the qubit I'm sending, my entangled qubit and the qubit out in deep space - is

1/2 [ a ( |0> + |1> )( |01> + 10> ) + b ( |0> - |1> )( |11> + |00> )]

or, rearranging

1/2 [|00> (a|1> + b|0>)
+ |01> (a|0> + b|1>)
+ |10> (a|1> - b|0>)
+ |11> (a|0> - b|1>) ]

The qubit state a |0> + b |1> is now encoded in the third qubit, the one in deep space. However, my colleague does not have enough information yet to say just what the qubit was that I was trying to send. There are four possibilities above, and it could be any of them.

So, I must now measure the states of my two qubits. I will either have |00>, |01>, |10> or |11>, and once I have signalled this result to the starship by conventional means then the message can be read. If my measurement was |01> then the recipient need do nothing, the state at his end is exactly what I sent. For |00> then the X gate, the quantum NOT, will restore the original state. For |11> the Z gate, which flips |1> and -|1> and leaves |0> unchanged, will do the trick, and for |10> he can use X then Z.

Though the teleportation itself is instantaneous, it can provide no useful information until my conventional message describing the results of measurements at my end gets there. Until that point nothing of value has been achieved.

Now, it seems that Bruno claims that he has a new protocol that does not require the transmission of conventional information alongside the teleportation. Unfortunately, the only link he gave conveyed very little information, being the first chapter of a very incomplete dissertation. I'd very much like to see any papers on the subject, though. Can we see some references, some of the literature on this discovery, or at the very least a mathematical description of what's going on?

[edited to fix broken link]
[edited so that the maths lined up better]
[edited, again, because some of the 1s and 0s were the wrong way round. How embarrassing.]

FutileJester

28th March 2003, 06:08 AM

Thanks for the quantum clarifications, phobos. Interesting stuff.

BrunosStar - you there? Hello?

phobos

28th March 2003, 07:18 AM

I'd like to add that entanglement and teleportation are potentially useful, even though they can't give us FTL communications. It's _totally_ secure; you can't exactly eavesdrop on a communication that doesn't actually pass through the physical universe. And there's a protocol of super-dense coding that allows you to send someone one qubit (physically, materially, like by snailmail) and for this to result in their receiving two qubits of information; the trick is that the qubit sent is entangled with one they already have.

Also, a qubit in principle represents an infinite amount of conventional information, since a and b are continuous quantities. Unfortunately, I can't (say) encode a DVD rip of Two Towers in the finer decimal points of the 'a' value of my qubit and then teleport it to a friend. Even if I have a means of rigging my qubit so precisely, the receiver will never know the exact values of a and b, because when you measure a superposition it comes out |1> or |0>, not both. By statistical analysis of a whole _lot_ of my teleported qubits, he could determine the values of a and b to arbitrary accuracy (since a determines the probability of |0> and b the probability of |1>), but then I have to send so many that I might as well have used old-fashioned binary :-( If only I _could_ do it that way, I'd have limitless bandwidth and there'd be no way for the MPAA to know about it.

Yes, I'm a geek. Wonderful new technology pushing the boundaries of modern physics, and I'm thinking about how to use it for piracy and porn.

[edited to be consistent with the edit I just made to the previous post, fixing 1s and 0s]

garys_2k

28th March 2003, 11:00 AM

Phobos, I *think* I understand your explanation. Thanks.

An additional question: BrunoStar had hinted about some sort of detection system on the spaceship end, where that half of the entagled pair would react (iirc) to a magnetic field. Now, am I wrong, but couldn't this "receiver" particle, once tested, lock itself into a state whether or not anything had been done on the other end? IOW, by the very process of examining the receiver aren't I causing it to act like a transmitter, determining both particles' states?

If so, then what is one to say about what the receiver does? Either the reaction observed is because of a transmitted state, or you're defining its otherwise random state. If this is the case, your measurements would be (I believe) indistinguishable from random noise. Therefore, no communications had taken place.

Does this make sense?

phobos

28th March 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by garys_2k
Phobos, I *think* I understand your explanation. Thanks.

An additional question: BrunoStar had hinted about some sort of detection system on the spaceship end, where that half of the entagled pair would react (iirc) to a magnetic field. Now, am I wrong, but couldn't this "receiver" particle, once tested, lock itself into a state whether or not anything had been done on the other end? IOW, by the very process of examining the receiver aren't I causing it to act like a transmitter, determining both particles' states?

If so, then what is one to say about what the receiver does? Either the reaction observed is because of a transmitted state, or you're defining its otherwise random state. If this is the case, your measurements would be (I believe) indistinguishable from random noise. Therefore, no communications had taken place.

Does this make sense?

Exactly right. If I'm monitoring my entangled qubit, I'll break the entanglement; it'll resolve into either a |1> or a |0> and will become useless as a communication channel. If I want to read EPR information, I should leave my qubit the hell alone until I receive the results from the other end over a conventional channel.

I can't even tell whether or not a message has been sent, which would in itself constitute information (indeed, it would constitute all the information needed to devise a binary code!) If a message HAS been sent, and I try to read it before the conventional signal arrives, then I won't know which of the four operations (nothing, X, Z, or ZX) to carry out on each qubit, and so the message I read will be completely randomised; my decoding can be no better than guesswork, and my results indistinguishable from the random noise I'd get if no message had been sent. In effect, the message has been encrypted with a perfectly random one-time pad, which my comrade is sending the slow way. I'm not getting the quantum goods till I have that conventional information.

The fact that watching the qubit breaks the entanglement is actually the chief practical problem with making quantum communications and computations workable. We have to keep these superposed and entangled qubits completely isolated from the rest of the Universe. We don't want them to interact with the larger world at all before we're ready, because that would collapse the wave function to either the |1> or |0> eigenstates, and spoil our whole day.

[edited to improve vocabulary a little]
[edited because it's XZ not ZX; spotting this typo made me recheck a lot of the algebra above, and I'm glad it did...]
[edited, again... no, it IS actually ZX. In matrix algebra we carry out operations starting from the right. I'm stupid today. But why the hell am I thinking about quantum information at quarter past eight on Friday night anyway?]

BrunosStar

30th March 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by phobos
Exactly right. If I'm monitoring my entangled qubit, I'll break the entanglement; it'll resolve into either a |1> or a |0> and will become useless as a communication channel. If I want to read EPR information, I should leave my qubit the hell alone until I receive the results from the other end over a conventional channel.

You can detect the particle's state via an induction method. This measuring technique is passive. It relies on a state change to induce a small electrical current. It's a similar process used an electrical generator. If you measure the particle with a polarization technique you will force the reciever to a state that was not encoded by the transmitter.

The application method to encode electrons would have to employ tunneling, so as the two chambers of the filtered electron and the trapped entangled particle can effect the Pauli exclusion principle and still allow for some separation between the two, so the filtered particle can be removed from the chamber. The tunnel wall must be controllable as well.

Bruno.

Tez

30th March 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

You can detect the particle's state via an induction method. This measuring technique is passive. It relies on a state change to induce a small electrical current. It's a similar process used an electrical generator. If you measure the particle with a polarization technique you will force the reciever to a state that was not encoded by the transmitter.

The application method to encode electrons would have to employ tunneling, so as the two chambers of the filtered electron and the trapped entangled particle can effect the Pauli exclusion principle and still allow for some separation between the two, so the filtered particle can be removed from the chamber. The tunnel wall must be controllable as well.

Bruno.

Hmm. I've read nothing of this thread. I go to the last post - and find absolute drivel.

BrunosStar, I'll claim for the record that you havent a freaking idea what youre talking about. You're somewhat like a chimpanzee that can string together words that it thinks it understands into something that would be considered coherent in a universe where everyone has taken way too much LSD....

On to a another thread...

BrunosStar

30th March 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Tez
Hmm. I've read nothing of this thread. I go to the last post - and find absolute drivel.

BrunosStar, I'll claim for the record that you havent a freaking idea what youre talking about. You're somewhat like a chimpanzee that can string together words that it thinks it understands into something that would be considered coherent in a universe where everyone has taken way too much LSD....

I think in this case, you're the chimp that doesn't know too much. So for the record Tez get educated, beacuse your ignorance is extremely offensive.

Bruno

garys_2k

30th March 2003, 05:05 PM

Uh, BS, while Tez's delivery may have been a bit sharp, I think he's correct about what you've written. It seems one cannot "encode" a particle to send information, only read what state it happens to be in. And that stuff about tunneling makes no sense in this context.

I'm not a physicist, but that much is clear to me.

BrunosStar

30th March 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by garys_2k
Uh, BS, while Tez's delivery may have been a bit sharp, I think he's correct about what you've written. It seems one cannot "encode" a particle to send information, only read what state it happens to be in. And that stuff about tunneling makes no sense in this context.

I'm not a physicist, but that much is clear to me.

By creating an environment where you can implement the Pauli exclusion principle, then yes you can encode a particle to a state.

And the tunneling does make sense. What about tunneling don't you understand?

Bruno.

RichardR

30th March 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
I think in this case, you're the chimp that doesn't know too much. So for the record Tez get educated, beacuse your ignorance is extremely offensive.Have you seen his resume? ;)

FutileJester

30th March 2003, 11:05 PM

Ah, BrunosStar, you're back... Two things.

First of all, I will gently say that regardless of who is more correct about the physics, you need to be able to explain it better. Everyone's who's said anything about it in this thread has made sense to me, except for you. You need to define your terms more clearly and describe the hypothetical configurations with some precision. Otherwise it makes it hard for people not to assume that you are just throwing around technobabble to hide a lack of understanding.

Secondly, I'd still like to hear your answers to repeated questions from earlier. Do you think that there is a difference between knowledge based on faith and knowledge based on evidence? Do you believe that Ouranosism represents the truth?

Given how many times you've doged these questions, it's getting hard not to assume that you don't think you can defend your answers.

BrunosStar

31st March 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
Secondly, I'd still like to hear your answers to repeated questions from earlier. Do you think that there is a difference between knowledge based on faith and knowledge based on evidence? Do you believe that Ouranosism represents the truth?

The perception of an experience is what we call evidence. Just two hundred years ago a person could be burned as a witch. A great deal of people experienced phenomena that they could only explain with gods and devils. Today we collectively verify evidence with a different philosophy and converge on a common agreement. This common agreement is usually very gray. It will always be gray because everyone's experience is unique from each other. Theories will change, but not just because of new evidence that refutes it. Theories will change because human beings can derive new ideas by re-examining old ideas. So to answer your question, do I think that ideas based on faith are different that those based on evidence? I would say no. Faith is just as much of an input to our intellect as what we today would call evidence.

There's a program on PBS called connections, perhaps you've seen it. What I really like about the program is how it can connect historically the relatedness of ideas and inventions to modern theories and technologies. Ideas have a start or influence. That influence may or may not look or sound like the final idea, but somewhere in the influence lies the roots to a new beginning.

We all believe that the future of space travel will be giant star ships like Star Trek. Only because a few promoted the idea as the only way it can happen. Ouranosism doesn't and so its ideas as to how to solve galactic exploration are radically different from Star Trek. Could ET be here? Sure, but what would we consider evidence for an ET being here? If it uses van Neuman nanobots that manufacture devices here on earth, then the material of the ET devices will have earthly origins. So even if something were discovered from ET, it wouldn't prove an ET existence. So then what are you left with, if you have such an experience or made such a discovery? All you would be left with is speculation. But at least the speculation is based on ideas we can reproduce.

Bruno

BillyJoe

31st March 2003, 04:01 AM

What does BS stand for other than BrunoStar?
I say we leave him to drown in it.

garys_2k

31st March 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar

By creating an environment where you can implement the Pauli exclusion principle, then yes you can encode a particle to a state.

No, you just exclude particles ALREADY set to the state that your environment isn't consistent with. Very big difference.

And the tunneling does make sense. What about tunneling don't you understand?

Bruno.
It makes no sense in this context, i.e. quantum communications.

RichardR

31st March 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
do I think that ideas based on faith are different that those based on evidence? I would say no. No.

Faith is belief despite the total lack of evidence.

FutileJester

31st March 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
The perception of an experience is what we call evidence.

I can see why we disagree at sentence one. I don't call the perception of an experience evidence; I call it an anectdote. It's evidential value is very low. Observing, creating a hypothesis, making a prediction, precisely observing that prediction, submitting all this to peers to be attacked and replicated... now that's evidence you can hang your hat on. The history of science is the history of realizing all the ways our perceptions may mislead us and finding ways to control for that.

If there is no difference between ideas based on faith and ideas based on evidence, doesn't that nullify all of science? Faith is a lot easier than science. If they're equally effective, why not rely on faith alone? Why do you consider it important that your faith has a scientific basis, if there is no difference between faith and science?

We all believe that the future of space travel will be giant star ships like Star Trek. Only because a few promoted the idea as the only way it can happen.

Bit of a strawman here. I don't know anyone who thinks that's the only way it can happen. There's no question that robotic exploration will at least precede biological exploration, and yes, possibly replace it. You're still being unclear as to why Ouranos is the preferred explanation out of all plausible explanations. The Raelians claim scientific plausibility; why are they wrong and Ouranos believers right?

Assuming that you believe Ouranos is 'right', which you still haven't exactly answered. Do you see Ouranos as the truth and other ideas about ET exploration as false?

BrunosStar

31st March 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by garys_2k

No, you just exclude particles ALREADY set to the state that your environment isn't consistent with. Very big difference.

It makes no sense in this context, i.e. quantum communications.

However you want to describe it, the point is; the particle can be manipulated to change states to a predetermined value.

The tunneling is used to allow for the interaction between the filtered particle and the entangled particle. How you came to the conclusion it was used to communicate with the receiver is beyond me.

Bruno.

BrunosStar

31st March 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester
Assuming that you believe Ouranos is 'right', which you still haven't exactly answered. Do you see Ouranos as the truth and other ideas about ET exploration as false?

Yes I did answer that question. I'll state it one more time; The Ouranos explanation solves very serious issues regarding the energy needed to reach near light speeds, how to reach billions of stars, how a society can afford to explore the galaxy and how a society deals with the time spans involved. Realians do not have any good solutions to those problems, nor do any other ET theories to date, other than Ouranos.

Bruno

FutileJester

31st March 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Yes I did answer that question. I'll state it one more time; The Ouranos explanation solves very serious issues regarding the energy needed to reach near light speeds, how to reach billions of stars, how a society can afford to explore the galaxy and how a society deals with the time spans involved. Realians do not have any good solutions to those problems, nor do any other ET theories to date, other than Ouranos.

But Ouranos says a lot more than that, right? It claims that there is an ET presence on Earth. It says that ETs cause paranormal, occult and psychic phenomenon. It says that ETs are the source of the miracle of Fatima. It makes very detailed explanations of how actual ET ships are constructed. The fact that they've addressed issues about interstellar travel and economics is no reason to assume that all of this is true.

And in any case we've just pushed the issue a level deeper. If all knowledge is faith, why does it matter at all that Ouranos incorporates some plausible physics? If faith A is invalid unless it includes faith B, doesn't that imply that faith B is somehow superior to faith A? This seems inconsistent with your earlier statement that there's no difference between B (evidence-based) and A (faith-based).

This is related to another unanswered question from my last post. If faith and science are equally useful, why not discard science? Faith is a heckuva lot easier.

aggle_rithm

16th April 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Yes I did answer that question. I'll state it one more time; The Ouranos explanation solves very serious issues regarding the energy needed to reach near light speeds, how to reach billions of stars, how a society can afford to explore the galaxy and how a society deals with the time spans involved. Realians do not have any good solutions to those problems, nor do any other ET theories to date, other than Ouranos.

From the Ouranos site:

A solar sail propels the pea size ship. The sail is super thin much like an insect’s wings only thinner! The ship tacks around ET’s sun to accelerate to 30 percent the speed of light.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know the exact equation, but given that we already have spacecraft that can escape the gravity of the sun, I believe that the escape velocity is much lower than 30 percent the speed of light. What keeps the ship in orbit as it "tacks" around the sun? Not gravity. It must be some other power source, which would negate any benefits of "solar sail" technology.

Maybe the gravity of ET's sun is much greater than ours? Nope. Such a star would have a significantly shorter lifespan, making development of an advanced civilization impossible. Even if it were possible, when the ship got to our solar system, how did it slow down when it's speed was so much greater than our sun's escape velocity? Maybe it's possible if it got close enough (again, I don't know the exact equation for the sun's escape velocity), but it take forever, as it negotiated immense eliptical orbits.

I only say this in response to the above quote: "The Ouranos explanation solves very serious issues regarding the energy needed to reach near light speeds". I don't believe that it does.

PS, I know of very few reputable scientific publications that require such liberal use of exclamation points...