On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:41 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:54 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > *> Special relativity merely forbids the transmission of anything >> 'physical' faster than light (FTL). It is easily possible to transfer >> information FTL.* >> > > *BULLSHIT!* > > * > Consider the following. shine a laser at the moon, then scan across >> the surface of the moon. The spot of light on the moon's surface clearly >> can move at any speed, particularly FTL. Now, if you use the laser to >> transmit a message to the first point, then scan away and re-transmit to >> the second location, you can certainly transmit information FTL.* >> > > *Don't be ridiculous! Light takes about 1 1/4 seconds to reach the Moon, > if I aim a laser at point X on the Moon and then move it to point Y also > on the Moon it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds after I moved my laser > before anybody at point X observes that the light coming from Earth has > gone off, and it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds before anybody at point > Y sees a light from Earth go on, and 2 1/2 seconds before anybody on planet > Earth sees the spot of light at point X start to move. Nobody on the Earth > or on the Moon has received or transmitted any information faster than > light. If it was possible to transmit information FTL according to > relativity you could send a message into the past, you could talk to the > Bruce Kellett of yesterday and that would create paradoxes.* > No. The example was not particularly well thought out. My point is that geometrical motions can exceed light velocity, and distant galaxies recede at greater than light speed. Light speed limits only physical transmission, unless by tachyons. In fine, understanding non-locality probably involves refining our understanding of space and time. *> "Non-local" does no mean that anything physical is transmitted FTL.* >> > > > *Being "local" means that there is a finite limit to the speed of > PHYSICAL causality, and in this universe that speed seems to be the speed > of light. * > Things do need to be rethought in the light of violations of the Bell inequalities and the unambiguous non-locality that this implies. > *>> What in the multiverse are you talking about?! If Many Worlds is >>> correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when >>> talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million >>> entangled photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce >>> Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact >>> that they each have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million >>> entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers.* >>> >> But for any one observer, even in many worlds, there is only ever one outcome for each experiment. And the existence of other words does not affect the result that that individual observer obtains. Hence Bell's theorem applies separately for every individual, even in many worlds. *> There may well be copies of the experimenter in MWI, but for any >> particular individual among these copies, the outcome of their experiments >> are unique.* >> > > *Yes.* > > >> *> Bell's theorem applies equally to all the copies individually.* >> > > *Yes, and in all of them all the Bruce Kelletts can experimentally confirm > that Bell's Inequality can be violated which would be logically impossible > if things were both realistic and local. * > That dichotomy does not apply. *>> Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon >>> of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction >>> (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then >>> the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2 >>> entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same >>> direction.* >> >> That is one of the things that have to be explained. *> Mere assertion is not proof of anything.* >> > > *DO YOUR HOMEWORK! It's been known for hundreds of years that light beams > with opposite polarizations treat polarizers in opposite ways, and it's > been known since 1905 that light beams are made up of photons. None of this > is controversial, it's physics 101. * > So how do entangled photons end up with opposite polarizations in an arbitrarily chosen direction? Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQBaegzercMbw_mV1dU3MYQX3XH4Lj8BYKDqVqf8AFAFQ%40mail.gmail.com.