FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?

[Kevin Aylward]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C", i.e.
the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it actually
runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out again. Maybe.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]

In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C", i.e.
the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]

*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger energy
state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't have
serial numbers.

When a narrow radiation line is passed through glass, the line doesn't
seem to get any wider. This means that the new photon must have exactly
the same energy as the old one. When a tight laser beam is passed through
glass it comes out as a tight beam. This means that the exact energy and
direction of the photon must be remembered (stored) at the location of the
electron for a brief time.

That's a lot of stored bits of information. I've often wondered if
Shannon has any trouble with storing it.




--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Mjolinor]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:teMTc.142924$28.34654@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C", i.e.
the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it actually
runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out again. Maybe.

No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is riding on
giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher orbit.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <teMTc.142924$28.34654@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C", i.e.
the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it actually
runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out again. Maybe.

Something effectively like that. Of course what you've described is a bit
more "classical" than I'd expect it to really be.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mjolinor wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:teMTc.142924$28.34654@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C",
i.e. the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it
actually runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out
again. Maybe.

No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is
riding on giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher
orbit.

These words makes no sense at all. A photon isn't a tract. This is
gibberish.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Mjolinor]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:05ZTc.143824$28.122316@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Mjolinor wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:teMTc.142924$28.34654@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C",
i.e. the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it
actually runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out
again. Maybe.

No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is
riding on giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher
orbit.

These words makes no sense at all. A photon isn't a tract. This is
gibberish.

Sorry, missed the off

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <05ZTc.143824$28.122316@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Mjolinor wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
[...]
No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is
riding on giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher
orbit.

These words makes no sense at all. A photon isn't a tract. This is
gibberish.

I wouldn't call them gibberish. They are merely wrong. The idea that
the electrons are trapped in a one dimensional loop and that the length of
this loop changes size as the energy changes is an ok way to think about
some of the quantum effects. It really bombs out on other questions.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <05ZTc.143824$28.122316@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Mjolinor wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
[...]
No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is
riding on giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher
orbit.

These words makes no sense at all. A photon isn't a tract. This is
gibberish.

I wouldn't call them gibberish.

Of course the sentence was gibberish. The syntax itself was meaningless.
Maybe what was meant was supposed to make sense, but photons are objects
that move along a tract (path). The path isn't the object. Such a
statement is nonsensical.

They are merely wrong. The idea that
the electrons are trapped in a one dimensional loop and that the
length of this loop changes size as the energy changes is an ok way
to think about some of the quantum effects.

This is not what the original sentence said. Your sentence actually
makes grammatical sense, whether or not it is a true statement is
another matter.

I don't know about any of the details you allude to here, but all energy
*has* to be fundamentally an object in motion. All we have in the 3
universes are objects, that move. That's you lot. Period.

For example, if mass can be "turned" to energy (i.e. motion of objects)
mass must consist of motion of internal objects.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:42:14 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

You've missed the whole point of my argument.

---
Perhaps. If you could state precisely what it is, we might be able to
get past this impasse.
---

Switching to human runners doesn't help. Lets try this:


You have some electronics in one room with a push button on it. In
another room you have two devices that display numbers. You believe that
the numbers these devices display are the time since Jan 1, 1980 until a
pulse arrives at each input.

You press the button and go look in the other room. When you get there
they show a difference of 1 second. From this you would conclude that the
travel time down the two paths is really one secon different.

You believe that your measuring method is correct. You also believe that
this 1 second difference is proof of FTL.

---
Your experiment is really quite different from mine in that I require
nothing to keep time until a pulse is received, and then only to keep
time until until it receives another pulse which stops it, when the
accumulated time from the reception of the first pulse to the
reception of the second will be displayed.

Looking at a diagram I posted earlier:

+-->COM PATH 1-->[EDGE DETECTOR]<----------------+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+-->COM PATH 2-->[EDGE DETECTOR]-----------------+


Just for grins, let's assume that both channels are identical, so that
the delays through each of them will also be identical, and that the
com paths themselves are through a vacuum. Such being the case,
signal A and signal B will both arrive at the scope at exactly the
same time. Assuming that we have A triggering the horizontal sweep
and that it takes no time for the sweep to work, we should see the
sweep start with both A and B high (I'm assuming A and B are
high-going pulses) and both go low at exactly the same time, when the
pulses go low, like this:
_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB |______________________________________


This tells us nothing, however, since both pulses could be travelling
any speed, or even faster than C and we'd never know it.

So let's do this to get a time reference we can use to make some
differential measurements:


+-------------->[COM PATH 1]->[EDGE DETECTOR]----+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+->[1ľs DELAY]->[COM PATH 2]->[EDGE DETECTOR]----+


Now, when A and B start heading for the scope, A will get there first,
will trigger the scope (which will start the sweep) and some time
later the pulse propagating dowm com path 2 will show up on channel B,
like this:


_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB ___________| |__________________________

t1 |<---1ľs--->|

t1 is, of course, the 1ľs delay introduced into channel B and as long
as both channels are otherwise identical it will take the leading edge
of pulse B 1ľs longer to get to the scope than it did for pulse A to
get there, So pulse B will be displayed 1ľs after the sweep was
started by pulse A. The lengths of the com paths will make no
difference as long as the velocity of propagation of the pulse in each
is the same in both, and because we have contrived to make the com
paths exist in a vacuum, the pulses will travel at C.


Now, let's say that we have found what we believe is a way to make EM
travel faster than C in a vacuum and that we want to try to determine
whether we're right.

Let's also say that we hooked up our experiment with no delay, (as
shown in the first diagram) that we got the results we expected, and
that when we then hooked it up with a delay, (as shown in the second
diagram) the results were precisely as shown on the timing diagram.

Then we hook up our FTL machine like this:




+->[FTL MACHINE]->[COM PATH 1]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+->[1ľs DELAY]--->[COM PATH 2]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+


and when we look at the scope we see this:
_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB ______________________| |_______________

t1 |<---------2ľs-------->|


A curious result indeed, since it seems to indicate that either the
length of com path 2 was increased or the length of com path 1
decreased. Since we did neither, and the only change we made in our
rig was to introduce the FTL machine into com path 1, it seems that
the _effectice_ length of com path 1 was made shorter. In order for
that to happen (since the path wasn't made physically shorter) the
propagation velocity of the pulse must have been increased, and since
the pulse was already moving along at C, the FTL machine must have,
somehow, pushed it past C.

Of course this is all conjecture based on the premise that a pulse
scurrying along at faster than C could have an effect on things
operating on this side of C, (that is, causing a scope to be
triggered) so so far it's all science fiction. As far as we know,
though, we may well be surrounded by superluminal events which we have
no way of recognizing, and so we say, "It can't be..."

Interestingly, there have been reports of objects materializing out of
thin air, with those materializations accompanied by a flash of blue
light. Cerenkov radiation accompanying the decelerating object?
Maybe...

---

Lets further assume that your currently accepted theory of physics say
both that the equipment is indeed measuring the speed correctly and that
FLT is imposible. You have just proven that this theory is wrong.

---
Yes. And about time, I'd say!^)
---

Lets say, there is another theory of physics which states that the entire
contents of that other room does not exist unless you are looking at it.
Under this theory, the equipment and the measurement even the windows and
drapes and potted plants wink in and out of existance. This theory is so
weird you've rejected because (A) its weird (B) you have another theory
that worked perfectly.

Now you are in a bind. The theory you have been using is now proven to be
false and the truely weird one may be all you've got. Under this truely
weird theory, there was no information in the room at all until you opened
the door. In this theory FTL is still imposible.

---
I'm in no bind at all.

If FTL is impossible under the aegis of either theory and it later
turn out that FTL _is_ possible, then both of the theories will have
been proved wrong. I don't have a problem with that, And if it turns
out that FTL is totally unrealizable then I don't have a problem with
that either. What I _do_ have a problem with is inflexible
authoritarians who pontificate that only their viewpoint is valid.
---

If matters a whole bunch. "C" is the top speed of communications in the
universe.

---
We don't know that for sure, it's just that _we_ can't seem to find
anything going faster because _we're_ bound, so far, by what we don't
know.

I agree we can't really be sure its right but that is what I mean by "C".

It just happens that light goes that fast.

---
Only as the limit allowed in a vacuum, and it varies just like
everything else does depending on the density of the medium it's
traversing.

Exactly "C" is an upper limit.

---
No, "C" is about three hundred million meters per second, and is how
fast light moves in a vacuum, which is not necessarily the fastest
that anything can go, anywhere. It's just the fastest speed we've
been able to detect in our universe. It may even be that things are
going faster but we can't tell because if they are we can't detect
them.
---


--
John Fields

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <bip1i0degb9ad49o1u77lolb2nr8tct37p@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Your experiment is really quite different from mine

The intent of my experiment was not you directly replace yours. The
intent was to point out the basic underlying problem with the logic you
are using to design your experiment.

[...]

Now, let's say that we have found what we believe is a way to make EM
travel faster than C in a vacuum and that we want to try to determine
whether we're right.

Let's also say that we hooked up our experiment with no delay, (as
shown in the first diagram) that we got the results we expected, and
that when we then hooked it up with a delay, (as shown in the second
diagram) the results were precisely as shown on the timing diagram.

Then we hook up our FTL machine like this:




+->[FTL MACHINE]->[COM PATH 1]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+->[1ľs DELAY]--->[COM PATH 2]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+


and when we look at the scope we see this:

"when we look at scope" we can substitute, determine the state of the
oscilloscope's display at some later time.

_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB ______________________| |_______________

t1 |<---------2ľs-------->|


A curious result indeed, since it seems to indicate that either the
length of com path 2 was increased or the length of com path 1
decreased.

The word "seems" is very important here. You've looked at the state of
the scope's display and have seen something that appears to indicate FTL.
It also could be the partially fed cat in our story and only have taken on
that appearance when you checked its state. If it is the partially fed
cat, there is no information there until you check the state.

If FTL is impossible under the aegis of either theory and it later
turn out that FTL _is_ possible, then both of the theories will have
been proved wrong.

No, the partially fed cat version doesn't require FTL to get the scope to
display what you've seen so that theory is still standing.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:14:11 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <bip1i0degb9ad49o1u77lolb2nr8tct37p@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Your experiment is really quite different from mine

The intent of my experiment was not you directly replace yours. The
intent was to point out the basic underlying problem with the logic you
are using to design your experiment.

---
Then do it quantitatively. So far all you've done is invoke nebulous
spectres of half-fed cats and scenarios which put you ill at ease.
---

Now, let's say that we have found what we believe is a way to make EM
travel faster than C in a vacuum and that we want to try to determine
whether we're right.

Let's also say that we hooked up our experiment with no delay, (as
shown in the first diagram) that we got the results we expected, and
that when we then hooked it up with a delay, (as shown in the second
diagram) the results were precisely as shown on the timing diagram.

Then we hook up our FTL machine like this:




+->[FTL MACHINE]->[COM PATH 1]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+->[1ľs DELAY]--->[COM PATH 2]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+


and when we look at the scope we see this:

"when we look at scope" we can substitute, determine the state of the
oscilloscope's display at some later time.

---
Semantic games. We could also set up the pulse generator to operate
continuously and place ourselves squarely in front of the scope and
observe the display in real time, but so what? The purpose of the
experiment is clear and the outcomes would, ostensibly, be the same.
---

_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB ______________________| |_______________

t1 |<---------2ľs-------->|


A curious result indeed, since it seems to indicate that either the
length of com path 2 was increased or the length of com path 1
decreased.

The word "seems" is very important here. You've looked at the state of
the scope's display and have seen something that appears to indicate FTL.
It also could be the partially fed cat in our story and only have taken on
that appearance when you checked its state. If it is the partially fed
cat, there is no information there until you check the state.

---
Again, so what? I'm not interested in what's there before I check
what's there, and when I check the state and find that I got what I
expected, it could then be because either I was right or the rules of
physics are bending to my will and allowing FTL to exist in order to
give me what I want. That's fine, since I'll be right either way and
FTL will have been proved to exist.

And if I checked the state an innumerable number of times and the
outcome was always the same and then after a good deal of study the
underpinnings of FTL were discovered, then I suppose that would make
for a well fed kitty and you'd be happy?
---

If FTL is impossible under the aegis of either theory and it later
turn out that FTL _is_ possible, then both of the theories will have
been proved wrong.

No, the partially fed cat version doesn't require FTL to get the scope to
display what you've seen so that theory is still standing.

---
So, you can use this poor undernourished cat to wave away disquieting
conjecture? Be bareful you don't starve it to death!^)

--
John Fields

 

[Rich Grise]

Ken Smith wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
If FTL is impossible under the aegis of either theory and it later
turn out that FTL _is_ possible, then both of the theories will have
been proved wrong.

No, the partially fed cat version doesn't require FTL to get the scope to
display what you've seen so that theory is still standing.

Now this is starting to sound like the halfers-vs-thirders over on

news:rec.puzzles . ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <e0g2i05o86rljifhqreirqnvrdppauucsn@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]

Again, so what? I'm not interested in what's there before I check
what's there,

But .. but ... but ... yes you are.

If the scope is the "partially fed cat" it is in a mixed quantum state
until you check it. That is, the issue of what is on the display is not
decided until the state is determined by you checking it.

Under theory (B) of quantum physics:

When you check it, from your point of view, the issue of what is on the
display is now a decided matter. From the point of view of some outside
observer, now both you and the scope are now in the partially fed cat
state until you tell that observer what you saw. This effect radiates
outward through each level of observer.

This is why you will firmly believe the FTL has happened, but when you try
to apply it to two way communications it will quit working.

So, you can use this poor undernourished cat to wave away disquieting
conjecture? Be bareful you don't starve it to death!^)

No, remember this is about *proving* FTL. I've owned cats so I now a lot
about quantum physics just from observation.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <UqdUc.24453$SC1.20468@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
If FTL is impossible under the aegis of either theory and it later
turn out that FTL _is_ possible, then both of the theories will have
been proved wrong.

No, the partially fed cat version doesn't require FTL to get the scope to
display what you've seen so that theory is still standing.

Now this is starting to sound like the halfers-vs-thirders over on
news:rec.puzzles . ;-)

Yes but Mr. Fields and me are having more fun than they are.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:05:33 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <e0g2i05o86rljifhqreirqnvrdppauucsn@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]
Again, so what? I'm not interested in what's there before I check
what's there,

But .. but ... but ... yes you are.

---
But .. but ... but ... no, I'm not.

All I really care about is that it be in a particular state when I
check it. That is, I want to see that 2ľs delay time after time after
time...

Kinda like if FedEX were to claim that they could deliver a package to
my door three seconds after they picked it up, no matter where they
picked it up from. I couldn't care less about what happens between
when they pick it up and deliver it, that's their secret. All I want
is to see the package there when they said it would be there.
---

If the scope is the "partially fed cat" it is in a mixed quantum state
until you check it. That is, the issue of what is on the display is not
decided until the state is determined by you checking it.

---
Again, as long as the display is displaying what I want it to be
displaying when I check it, there is no issue because I don't care
what's happening when I'm not checking.
---

Under theory (B) of quantum physics:

When you check it, from your point of view, the issue of what is on the
display is now a decided matter. From the point of view of some outside
observer, now both you and the scope are now in the partially fed cat
state until you tell that observer what you saw. This effect radiates
outward through each level of observer.

This is why you will firmly believe the FTL has happened, but when you try
to apply it to two way communications it will quit working.

---
Well, of course if I make my oservation and then relay that
information to another observer it's going to take longer than if the
second observer was viewing the scope at the same time I was. It
would also take longer for the information to get to the second
observer if he was farther downstream from the source than I was.

That's no different from how things are now, but what _is_ different
is the new carrier we're talking about, with differences in
propagation velocites between it and EM perhaps analogous to the
difference in propagation velocities between sound and RF through air.

Taking the analogy one step farther and considering that for the
mechanical transmission and reception of sound you need (say) a larynx
and an ear, for the transmission and reception of RF a radio
transmitter and receiver, and for the transmission and reception of
FTL an FTL transmitter and receiver, (which is no doubt looked upon
with as much disdain by some of us, now, as radio once was) all that's
needed now is the TX/RX pair. It seems like we might be able to do it
with entangled photons, but so far that way seems to be tantalizingly
just out of reach, so who knows?
---

So, you can use this poor undernourished cat to wave away disquieting
conjecture? Be bareful you don't starve it to death!^)

No, remember this is about *proving* FTL. I've owned cats so I now a lot
about quantum physics just from observation.

---
Well, the proof will be in the pudding, but nobody _owns_ cats, they
merely allow you to take care of them.

--
John Fields

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <o894i05b4408k500j1an00lq8ft0oahbhk@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[..]

But .. but ... but ... no, I'm not.

All I really care about is that it be in a particular state when I
check it. That is, I want to see that 2ľs delay time after time after
time...

You may want to see that, but that doesn't prove FTL communications.

Lets imagine a case where the scope shows a 2uS difference 1/2 an hour after
the pulse was generated 1 foot away. No information got to the scope's
display at an FTL speed.

Kinda like if FedEX were to claim that they could deliver a package to
my door three seconds after they picked it up, no matter where they
picked it up from. I couldn't care less about what happens between
when they pick it up and deliver it, that's their secret. All I want
is to see the package there when they said it would be there.

But how would you prove that the time from pick up to delivery was really
3 seconds? People can claim lots of things. Unless you have some way to
determine the pick up time. You don't even know that you are in fact
looking at the same package, let alone that it was picked up when claimed.


[...]

Well, of course if I make my oservation and then relay that
information to another observer it's going to take longer than if the
second observer was viewing the scope at the same time I was.

It doesn't merely take longer for the second observer. As far as he's
concerned, you don't even know the answer until you tell him. If you try
to send a reply before you tell him, from his point of view you can only
send a random reply.

Well, the proof will be in the pudding, but nobody _owns_ cats, they
merely allow you to take care of them.

I just had to leave that comment in place.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:19:39 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <o894i05b4408k500j1an00lq8ft0oahbhk@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[..]
But .. but ... but ... no, I'm not.

All I really care about is that it be in a particular state when I
check it. That is, I want to see that 2ľs delay time after time after
time...

You may want to see that, but that doesn't prove FTL communications.

---
Sounds to me like you're saying that you wouldn't want me to see that
because it might...
---

Lets imagine a case where the scope shows a 2uS difference 1/2 an hour after
the pulse was generated 1 foot away. No information got to the scope's
display at an FTL speed.

---
OK, then, what do you think be the minimum path length would be for
the >1ľs delay to indicate "unusual behavior"
---

Kinda like if FedEX were to claim that they could deliver a package to
my door three seconds after they picked it up, no matter where they
picked it up from. I couldn't care less about what happens between
when they pick it up and deliver it, that's their secret. All I want
is to see the package there when they said it would be there.

But how would you prove that the time from pick up to delivery was really
3 seconds? People can claim lots of things. Unless you have some way to
determine the pick up time. You don't even know that you are in fact
looking at the same package, let alone that it was picked up when claimed.

---
The pickup time part is easy. All I do is call up Digi-Key on the STL
phone before FedEx is sceduled to make the pickup and ask them to send
me an STL message with the time FedEx picked up the package as soon as
FedEX picks up the package. Since it's really easy for us to keep
track of STL time within microseconds per hour, that should give me a
pretty good idea of when it was picked up. Then, when FedEX rings my
doorbell I grab that time and compare it with the time I got from
Digi-Key. Since it's all STL, it doesn't really matter when I get the
message from DK since as long as it's got the pickup time in it and
I've got the delivery time I can do a trivial subtract and get the
time from pickup to delivery.

As far as whether it's the "same" package or not, what do I care? I
ordered some parts, I got them a few seconds/minutes/hours later,
(whatever I needed and could afford) and I'm happy.

What happened between when I ordered the parts and when I got them is,
again, immaterial unless I'm in the FTL business or building
transmatters or something like that...
---

Well, of course if I make my oservation and then relay that
information to another observer it's going to take longer than if the
second observer was viewing the scope at the same time I was.

It doesn't merely take longer for the second observer. As far as he's
concerned, you don't even know the answer until you tell him.

---
I can only tell him what the answer is AFTER I find out, so that will
necessarily take longer than if we both had the answer presented to us
in parallel. What's so hard about that?

Moreover, what he thinks about whether I have the answer or not is
immaterial. As soon as I get it, I'll relay it.
---

to send a reply before you tell him, from his point of view you can only
send a random reply.

---
We're not talking about replies yet. So far it's all one-way,
and if the same rules apply to him as apply to me, then what he cares
about is what his display indicates, not what was happening before he
saw it or how long it took for my reply to get there.

--
John Fields

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <qcq4i05ps9867m79l06k9gb2fg2bkd8q9h@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]

OK, then, what do you think be the minimum path length would be for
the >1ľs delay to indicate "unusual behavior"

Its fairly obvious that it would have to be well over 1000 feet. C being
about 1 foot per nS.

The pickup time part is easy. All I do is call up Digi-Key on the STL
phone before FedEx is sceduled to make the pickup and ask them to send
me an STL message with the time FedEx picked up the package as soon as
FedEX picks up the package. Since it's really easy for us to keep
track of STL time within microseconds per hour, that should give me a
pretty good idea of when it was picked up. Then, when FedEX rings my
doorbell I grab that time and compare it with the time I got from
Digi-Key. Since it's all STL, it doesn't really matter when I get the
message from DK since as long as it's got the pickup time in it and
I've got the delivery time I can do a trivial subtract and get the
time from pickup to delivery.

I think you now see way I changed the experiment to involve two times from
some starting time. It makes the problem easier to deal with.

You have a bit of a problem with the message from Digi-key however. You
can't prove that the time that was indicated was the real time of the pick
up. You really need to be at both ends of the experiment at the same
time, but you need to have the ends, in our case, 1000 feet apart.

If the FTL communications worked both ways, you could set up some circuit
that sends, perhaps, 3 times the number it receives. This circuit could
be at the far end of the pair of paths and then you could know for sure
what happened at both ends. By making it perform some operation on the
signal, you can rule out cross talk.

It doesn't merely take longer for the second observer. As far as he's
concerned, you don't even know the answer until you tell him.

---
I can only tell him what the answer is AFTER I find out, so that will
necessarily take longer than if we both had the answer presented to us
in parallel. What's so hard about that?

Yes but consider the time between when you find out and when you tell him.
In classical physics, you know the answer during that time. Under QM
theory (B) you don't know the answer during that time.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:23:25 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <qcq4i05ps9867m79l06k9gb2fg2bkd8q9h@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]
OK, then, what do you think be the minimum path length would be for
the >1ľs delay to indicate "unusual behavior"

Its fairly obvious that it would have to be well over 1000 feet. C being
about 1 foot per nS.

---
How about an exact number?
---

The pickup time part is easy. All I do is call up Digi-Key on the STL
phone before FedEx is sceduled to make the pickup and ask them to send
me an STL message with the time FedEx picked up the package as soon as
FedEX picks up the package. Since it's really easy for us to keep
track of STL time within microseconds per hour, that should give me a
pretty good idea of when it was picked up. Then, when FedEX rings my
doorbell I grab that time and compare it with the time I got from
Digi-Key. Since it's all STL, it doesn't really matter when I get the
message from DK since as long as it's got the pickup time in it and
I've got the delivery time I can do a trivial subtract and get the
time from pickup to delivery.

I think you now see way I changed the experiment to involve two times from
some starting time. It makes the problem easier to deal with.

---
What I see as the reason that you keep trying to change the experiment
is that you don't understand how a simple differential measurement can
eliminate the need to measure end-to-end times.
---

You have a bit of a problem with the message from Digi-key however. You
can't prove that the time that was indicated was the real time of the pick
up. You really need to be at both ends of the experiment at the same
time, but you need to have the ends, in our case, 1000 feet apart.

---
The need for the message from Digi-Key is part of your experiment, not
mine, and since I don't really care anything about the pickup time I
don't have a problem.
---

If the FTL communications worked both ways, you could set up some circuit
that sends, perhaps, 3 times the number it receives. This circuit could
be at the far end of the pair of paths and then you could know for sure
what happened at both ends. By making it perform some operation on the
signal, you can rule out cross talk.

---
That's the same as STL error checking by sending a received message
back to the transmitter where it's compared with what was sent. No big
deal.
---

It doesn't merely take longer for the second observer. As far as he's
concerned, you don't even know the answer until you tell him.

---
I can only tell him what the answer is AFTER I find out, so that will
necessarily take longer than if we both had the answer presented to us
in parallel. What's so hard about that?

Yes but consider the time between when you find out and when you tell him.
In classical physics, you know the answer during that time. Under QM
theory (B) you don't know the answer during that time.

---
OK, have it your way; I'm done.

--
John Fields