RE: RESEND, ascii, Superluminal
At 2:55 AM 12/20/4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Dear Horace, >Thanks for the response. This is my initial foray into the area. I disagree >about the polarizing beam splitter - it transmits, not absorbs. Losses and >attenuation can be minimised. Yes signal will be subject to noise but this >can be error corrected out. As long as some signal get through with >recognisable humps and troughs then we can discern the bittage (to coin a >term) of the signal. >Remi. I suggest that before going to the trouble to apply "bittage" to your signal you simply try to get your interference pattern at a distance. It's the only prudent thing to do financially speaking. You'll save a lot of money when you find out it isn't there. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner
RE: RESEND, ascii, Superluminal
Dear Horace, Thanks for the response. This is my initial foray into the area. I disagree about the polarizing beam splitter - it transmits, not absorbs. Losses and attenuation can be minimised. Yes signal will be subject to noise but this can be error corrected out. As long as some signal get through with recognisable humps and troughs then we can discern the bittage (to coin a term) of the signal. Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 December 2004 09:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RESEND, ascii, Superluminal At 6:59 AM 12/17/4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I will upload this stuff to the university website if it is any good or >leads somewhere, also once it is fixed and I can upload stuff again. > >http://www.corn-wall.freeserve.co.uk/home.htm >or more directly > >http://www.corn-wall.freeserve.co.uk/Superluminal_Letter.pdf The problem with obtaining interference patterns at a distant location appears to me to be at least in part a problem of attenuation. When a member of an entangled pair of photons interacts with matter, especially in a potentially polarizing interaction, the photons lose entanglement. An entangled photon that goes through a polarizing filter, for example, loses any prior entanglements. The attenuation problem is thus two-fold. First, photons are just plain lost to absorbtion. Secondly, of the small percentage that arrives, many have lost entanglement and thus act randomly. For these reasons, it is necessary to do coincidence counting to establish the inerference pattern and this requires an alternative channel. If this alternative channel can communicate faster than light, then no other channel is needed. It appears that using intermediary photon-atom entanglement at Bob's (receiving) location does not circumvent this problem, and in fact complicates things because then even coincidence counting is no longer reliable. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: RESEND, ascii, Superluminal
At 6:59 AM 12/17/4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I will upload this stuff to the university website if it is any good or >leads somewhere, also once it is fixed and I can upload stuff again. > >http://www.corn-wall.freeserve.co.uk/home.htm >or more directly > >http://www.corn-wall.freeserve.co.uk/Superluminal_Letter.pdf The problem with obtaining interference patterns at a distant location appears to me to be at least in part a problem of attenuation. When a member of an entangled pair of photons interacts with matter, especially in a potentially polarizing interaction, the photons lose entanglement. An entangled photon that goes through a polarizing filter, for example, loses any prior entanglements. The attenuation problem is thus two-fold. First, photons are just plain lost to absorbtion. Secondly, of the small percentage that arrives, many have lost entanglement and thus act randomly. For these reasons, it is necessary to do coincidence counting to establish the inerference pattern and this requires an alternative channel. If this alternative channel can communicate faster than light, then no other channel is needed. It appears that using intermediary photon-atom entanglement at Bob's (receiving) location does not circumvent this problem, and in fact complicates things because then even coincidence counting is no longer reliable. Regards, Horace Heffner
