Why EPR is only a signpost towards controlled FTL action

There is an old Arabic saying that roughly goes: A single grain of sand
can't be weighed, but many grains of sand can act together to make the scale
swing decisively.

This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum
connectedness via entangled states yield no useful information supporting
FTL, or instantaneous, information transfer. First off, most entangled
systems have only 2 particles in them. And the 2 particles make up only a
single system- so the only characteristics we can see are the properties of
the single particle, which we can't intelligently manipulate. This is why
results derived from single system, or one dimensional, EPR experiments
should be considered as a signpost of more interesting things to come,
because they do show instantaneous causation, but offer no methodology for
meaningful control. But, it is a given in information theory, that
increasing the dimensions of control in a system lets more activity happen.
The same holds true for 'simple' EPR, in that once you begin to increase
the degrees of freedom in an experiment you are allowed to control more
action going on within the experiment. A singular case in point is quantum
teleportation. this is an example where your 'channel' of information flow
is defined by at least 2 major dimensions - a quantum dimension and a
classical dimension, and many minor dimensions which are defined by the
number of entangled particles involved with the system.

So, what is possible if the number of interacting particles is made
arbitrarily large, but still within bounds? The number of dimensions of
control increases directly in proportion with the degrees of freedom within
the domain of quantum action. My findings indicate a simple directive: as
the domain of quantum action increases, it begins to have an effect on the
space-time around it. This back-action can, if it is large enough, induce
similar effects within other quantum domains that are in close proximity to
the main one. Thus EPR like effects begin to be noticeable in otherwise non
connected quantum domains. And, what are the dimensions of meaningful
control that link these domains? Are they characteristics such as spin, or
other stochastically uncontrollable characteristics? No, they include
dynamical variables the experimenter can directly control such as voltage
(particle kinetic energy) and current (particle density). In short,
utilizing the large scale quantum effect of mutual induction between large
scale domains of quantum action, gives the experimenter the ability to
manipulate the effects between these now artificially entangled quantum
domains, allowing meaningful information to pass between them.

Besides allowing instantaneous information transfer to happen between
potentially spacelike separated domains, once useful domains are formed (no
small feat) the following are also observed:

1 In any action where relativity theory comes into conflict with quantum
theory where such a conflict will break a connection, relativity does not
apply. Quantum theory always comes first. Even if causality appears to be a
victim of this conflict (but upon closer observation, global causality
violations have not been observed which come into conflict with
observational ordering [locally], so it presently remains unclear if our
notion of causality needs revising. I have spoken of this briefly in other
posts).

2 Connected quantum domains are always 2-way, and instantaneous such that
the first rule is always observed i.e. there is no frame order dependence.

3 Quantum theory never contradicts itself in any observation, such that the
first two statements are always true.

4 Information transfer is not limited to only communications. Quantum
teleportation of macroscopic objects consisting of aggregations of many
particles is also possible, provided the domain of controlled quantum
actions is large enough to support it, and there is at least one degree of
freedom for every particle event. Thus the only limit to the teleportation
of a large object such as a human, is one of engineering and not one of
theory, provided rule 3 is not violated.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
There is an old Arabic saying that roughly goes: A single grain of sand
can't be weighed, but many grains of sand can act together to make the
scale
swing decisively.

This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum
connectedness via entangled states yield no useful information supporting
FTL, or instantaneous, information transfer. First off, most entangled
systems have only 2 particles in them. And the 2 particles make up only a
single system- so the only characteristics we can see are the properties
of
the single particle, which we can't intelligently manipulate. This is why
results derived from single system, or one dimensional, EPR experiments
should be considered as a signpost of more interesting things to come,
because they do show instantaneous causation, but offer no methodology for
meaningful control. But, it is a given in information theory, that
increasing the dimensions of control in a system lets more activity
happen.
The same holds true for 'simple' EPR, in that once you begin to increase
the degrees of freedom in an experiment you are allowed to control more
action going on within the experiment. A singular case in point is quantum
teleportation. this is an example where your 'channel' of information flow
is defined by at least 2 major dimensions - a quantum dimension and a
classical dimension, and many minor dimensions which are defined by the
number of entangled particles involved with the system.

So, what is possible if the number of interacting particles is made
arbitrarily large, but still within bounds? The number of dimensions of
control increases directly in proportion with the degrees of freedom
within
the domain of quantum action. My findings indicate a simple directive: as
the domain of quantum action increases, it begins to have an effect on the
space-time around it. This back-action can, if it is large enough, induce
similar effects within other quantum domains that are in close proximity
to
the main one. Thus EPR like effects begin to be noticeable in otherwise
non
connected quantum domains. And, what are the dimensions of meaningful
control that link these domains? Are they characteristics such as spin, or
other stochastically uncontrollable characteristics? No, they include
dynamical variables the experimenter can directly control such as voltage
(particle kinetic energy) and current (particle density). In short,
utilizing the large scale quantum effect of mutual induction between large
scale domains of quantum action, gives the experimenter the ability to
manipulate the effects between these now artificially entangled quantum
domains, allowing meaningful information to pass between them.

Besides allowing instantaneous information transfer to happen between
potentially spacelike separated domains, once useful domains are formed
(no
small feat) the following are also observed:

1 In any action where relativity theory comes into conflict with quantum
theory where such a conflict will break a connection, relativity does not
apply.

First there is no conflict. Secondly well known physical principles prevent
FTL. From Rindler - Introduction to Special Relativity page 17.

Consider any signal or process whereby an event P causes an event L (or
whereby information is sent from P to L) at 'superluiminal' speed U c
relative to some frame S. Choose coordinates in S so that these events both
occur on the x axis and let their time and distance separations be delta t
0 and delta x 0. Then in the usual second frame S' traveling at velocity
v we have from the Lorentz transformations:

delta t' = gamma (delta t - v delta x/c2) = gamma delta t (1 - vU/c2)]

For c2/U v c we would then have delta t' 0 - hence there would exist
frame in which L precedes P ie in which cause precedes effect ie casualty is
violated.

Rindler then goes not discuss the severe logical implications of this -
basically we would be in deep **** - being able to for example kill a rat in
one frame but in the other see it come to life. Thus when the two observers
come together again somehow the process of deceleration would have to cause
the rat to die or come alive - a rather far fetched idea.. Many similar
situations can be envisaged.

Notice I only used the Lorentz transformations. No other assumption was
made. And it is well known the Lorentz transformations follow from the POR
alone - see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Thus your claim amounts
to a rejection of the POR - a claim for which we have zero experimental
evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - not the
rantings of someone who claims to have achieved FTL but has not been able to
demonstrate it.

Bill

Quantum theory always comes first. Even if causality appears to be a
victim of this conflict (but upon closer observation, global causality
violations have not been observed which come into conflict with
observational ordering [locally], so it presently remains unclear if our
notion of causality needs revising. I have spoken of this briefly in other
posts).

2 Connected quantum domains are always 2-way, and instantaneous such that
the first rule is always observed i.e. there is no frame order dependence.

3 Quantum theory never contradicts itself in any observation, such that
the
first two statements are always true.

4 Information transfer is not limited to only communications. Quantum
teleportation of macroscopic objects consisting of aggregations of many
particles is also possible, provided the domain of controlled quantum
actions is large enough to support it, and there is at least one degree of
freedom for every particle event. Thus the only limit to the teleportation
of a large object such as a human, is one of engineering and not one of
theory, provided rule 3 is not violated.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Greysky:
There is an old Arabic saying that roughly goes: A single grain of sand
can't be weighed, but many grains of sand can act together to make the scale
swing decisively.

Another soliloquy of sohistry.

[*snip*]

Bill Hobba wrote:


For c2/U v c we would then have delta t' 0 - hence there would exist
frame in which L precedes P ie in which cause precedes effect ie casualty is
violated.

David Hume pointed out that causality is really association of event
types always observed. What if we observed things in a different way.
Are causal connects guaranteed? We know from experience that what we
call causes preceed what we call effects. But does our experience
exhaust all the possibility that exist in nature? Hume pointed out that
we observed coincidence and propinquity in the temporal ordering, but
that we have NEVER observed a NECESSARY CONNECTION between cause and
effect. We have only observed instances of event types we say are
causally related.




Rindler then goes not discuss the severe logical implications of this -
basically we would be in deep **** - being able to for example kill a rat in
one frame but in the other see it come to life. Thus when the two observers
come together again somehow the process of deceleration would have to cause
the rat to die or come alive - a rather far fetched idea.. Many similar
situations can be envisaged.

If Nature could care (it can't) it would not give a rats patootie how
deep we are in ****. That is our problem, not Nature's. Nature does not
care what our theories are or even if we theorize. Long before humans
there were plants and critter that just *were*. They never thought and
they never theorized. We tend to let our self consciousness of the fact
that we are self conscious lull us into thinking that our thinking
really matters to anything but us. Nature does not care if we think or
not. Nature does not care --- period. The universe is mostly dead and we
are a fluke that is alive.

Bob Kolker

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...


Bill Hobba wrote:


For c2/U v c we would then have delta t' 0 - hence there would
exist
frame in which L precedes P ie in which cause precedes effect ie
casualty is
violated.

David Hume pointed out that causality is really association of event
types always observed. What if we observed things in a different way.
Are causal connects guaranteed? We know from experience that what we
call causes preceed what we call effects. But does our experience
exhaust all the possibility that exist in nature? Hume pointed out that
we observed coincidence and propinquity in the temporal ordering, but
that we have NEVER observed a NECESSARY CONNECTION between cause and
effect. We have only observed instances of event types we say are
causally related.

I had a chat with Dirk in a similar vein about this a while ago. His view
is it simply is a model and providing the model is consistent then we can do
whatever we like. In the end though I think he agreed the model would need
to address the issue in some way and not just leave it up in the air.





Rindler then goes not discuss the severe logical implications of this -
basically we would be in deep **** - being able to for example kill a
rat in
one frame but in the other see it come to life. Thus when the two
observers
come together again somehow the process of deceleration would have to
cause
the rat to die or come alive - a rather far fetched idea.. Many similar
situations can be envisaged.

If Nature could care (it can't) it would not give a rats patootie how
deep we are in ****. That is our problem, not Nature's. Nature does not
care what our theories are or even if we theorize. Long before humans
there were plants and critter that just *were*. They never thought and
they never theorized. We tend to let our self consciousness of the fact
that we are self conscious lull us into thinking that our thinking
really matters to anything but us. Nature does not care if we think or
not. Nature does not care --- period. The universe is mostly dead and we
are a fluke that is alive.

Bob - you often go to pains to point out a theory must be logically
consistent. Now I am not that big a stickler about it but if effects
preceded causes then what I alluded to above would be a logical problem.
Dirk has correctly pointed out it is just a model and we would need to carry
out an experiment to see exactly what would happen - maybe in doing it we
observe something happening in some other braneworld universe - I don't
know. What I do believe however is the issue needs to be addressed in some
way. The simplest solution being - it is not allowed. If you have some
other proposal I am willing to hear it. I will however concede Nature does
nor care if we are in deep **** be - it may be allowed - all the breakdown
is may be pointing to is an area we need to be carefull about.

Thanks
Bill


Bob Kolker

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
There is an old Arabic saying that roughly goes: A single grain of sand
can't be weighed, but many grains of sand can act together to make the
scale
swing decisively.

This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum
connectedness via entangled states yield no useful information supporting
FTL, or instantaneous, information transfer. First off, most entangled
systems have only 2 particles in them. And the 2 particles make up only
a
single system- so the only characteristics we can see are the properties
of
the single particle, which we can't intelligently manipulate. This is why
results derived from single system, or one dimensional, EPR experiments
should be considered as a signpost of more interesting things to come,
because they do show instantaneous causation, but offer no methodology
for
meaningful control. But, it is a given in information theory, that
increasing the dimensions of control in a system lets more activity
happen.
The same holds true for 'simple' EPR, in that once you begin to increase
the degrees of freedom in an experiment you are allowed to control more
action going on within the experiment. A singular case in point is
quantum
teleportation. this is an example where your 'channel' of information
flow
is defined by at least 2 major dimensions - a quantum dimension and a
classical dimension, and many minor dimensions which are defined by the
number of entangled particles involved with the system.

So, what is possible if the number of interacting particles is made
arbitrarily large, but still within bounds? The number of dimensions of
control increases directly in proportion with the degrees of freedom
within
the domain of quantum action. My findings indicate a simple directive: as
the domain of quantum action increases, it begins to have an effect on
the
space-time around it. This back-action can, if it is large enough, induce
similar effects within other quantum domains that are in close proximity
to
the main one. Thus EPR like effects begin to be noticeable in otherwise
non
connected quantum domains. And, what are the dimensions of meaningful
control that link these domains? Are they characteristics such as spin,
or
other stochastically uncontrollable characteristics? No, they include
dynamical variables the experimenter can directly control such as voltage
(particle kinetic energy) and current (particle density). In short,
utilizing the large scale quantum effect of mutual induction between
large
scale domains of quantum action, gives the experimenter the ability to
manipulate the effects between these now artificially entangled quantum
domains, allowing meaningful information to pass between them.

Besides allowing instantaneous information transfer to happen between
potentially spacelike separated domains, once useful domains are formed
(no
small feat) the following are also observed:

1 In any action where relativity theory comes into conflict with quantum
theory where such a conflict will break a connection, relativity does not
apply.

First there is no conflict. Secondly well known physical principles
prevent
FTL. From Rindler - Introduction to Special Relativity page 17.

Consider any signal or process whereby an event P causes an event L (or
whereby information is sent from P to L) at 'superluiminal' speed U c
relative to some frame S. Choose coordinates in S so that these events
both
occur on the x axis and let their time and distance separations be delta t

0 and delta x 0. Then in the usual second frame S' traveling at
velocity
v we have from the Lorentz transformations:

delta t' = gamma (delta t - v delta x/c2) = gamma delta t (1 - vU/c2)]

Well, I could say that this simply doesn't apply because the delta t term
equals zero. So, t = t' = 0. Kinda messes everything up, doesn't it??



For c2/U v c we would then have delta t' 0 - hence there would exist
frame in which L precedes P ie in which cause precedes effect ie casualty
is
violated.

The problem with this math is in its interpretation. In the Lorentz
transform if vC, then you have the problem of taking the square root of a
negative number. The Lorentz transform becomes imaginary at this point. Does
this mean anything really, other than showing where this form of simple math
no longer applies? Causality doesn't depend on relativity, nor can transform
equations define causal actions. The strength of quantum mechanics is that
it needs no 'conversion' equations to make it work from any particular
perspective. The fact that QM doesn't even need such a concept (causality)
should offer a clue as to which theory is more robust. Damn, I could go into
this in much more depth, but this isn't a philosophy newsgroup so wouldn't
be appropriate. Suffice it to say I have never observed observed an event
where its effect preceeded its logical cause - even though a simple
definition of causality has not been observed. This just tells me there is
more to cause / effect relationships than is commonly believed.


Rindler then goes not discuss the severe logical implications of this -
basically we would be in deep **** - being able to for example kill a rat
in
one frame but in the other see it come to life. Thus when the two
observers
come together again somehow the process of deceleration would have to
cause
the rat to die or come alive - a rather far fetched idea.. Many similar
situations can be envisaged.

Notice I only used the Lorentz transformations. No other assumption was
made. And it is well known the Lorentz transformations follow from the
POR
alone - see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Thus your claim amounts
to a rejection of the POR - a claim for which we have zero experimental
evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - not the
rantings of someone who claims to have achieved FTL but has not been able
to
demonstrate it.

Hmmm.... I don't agree my claim amounts to the total rejection of the
principle of relativity, only that it doesn't apply for non-inertial frames.
And if, as I maintain, a superluminal communications device always operates
with zero propagation time between devices, across all FOR then it indeed is
its own reference frame, and though non-inertial, is still not acausal for
any possible observer. And as I have said in other posts, even if classical
causality *is* violated, if no one is there to observe it, so what? Maybe my
gizmo is violating causality in the andromeda galaxy - but since I am not
there to see it, and no one I know is ever going to go there to watch it
violating causality and report back to me, and any alien who happens to be
there and hears my transmission has no way to make the judgement I have
violated causlaity, like I said, so what?


Bill

Quantum theory always comes first. Even if causality appears to be a
victim of this conflict (but upon closer observation, global causality
violations have not been observed which come into conflict with
observational ordering [locally], so it presently remains unclear if our
notion of causality needs revising. I have spoken of this briefly in
other
posts).

2 Connected quantum domains are always 2-way, and instantaneous such
that
the first rule is always observed i.e. there is no frame order
dependence.

3 Quantum theory never contradicts itself in any observation, such that
the
first two statements are always true.

4 Information transfer is not limited to only communications. Quantum
teleportation of macroscopic objects consisting of aggregations of many
particles is also possible, provided the domain of controlled quantum
actions is large enough to support it, and there is at least one degree
of
freedom for every particle event. Thus the only limit to the
teleportation
of a large object such as a human, is one of engineering and not one of
theory, provided rule 3 is not violated.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

"Greysky" wrote in message om...
There is an old Arabic saying that roughly goes: A single grain of sand
can't be weighed, but many grains of sand can act together to make the scale
swing decisively.

This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum
connectedness via entangled states yield no useful information supporting
FTL, or instantaneous, information transfer. First off, most entangled
systems have only 2 particles in them. And the 2 particles make up only a
single system- so the only characteristics we can see are the properties of
the single particle, which we can't intelligently manipulate. This is why
results derived from single system, or one dimensional, EPR experiments
should be considered as a signpost of more interesting things to come,
because they do show instantaneous causation, but offer no methodology for
meaningful control. But, it is a given in information theory, that
increasing the dimensions of control in a system lets more activity happen.

There is an even better given in information theory, that
for every X, the speed of X is not information.

Which is really the only reason Einstonian idiots can even get away
with using C=1 is their meaningless Equations.

Since the number of control dimensions in EPR is FIXED.
Which is really the whole point of the EPR paradox
to begin with. Which the QM people and their
random bit streams still haven't figured out.

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
There is an old Arabic saying that roughly goes: A single grain of sand
can't be weighed, but many grains of sand can act together to make the
scale
swing decisively.

This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum
connectedness via entangled states yield no useful information
supporting
FTL, or instantaneous, information transfer. First off, most entangled
systems have only 2 particles in them. And the 2 particles make up
only
a
single system- so the only characteristics we can see are the
properties
of
the single particle, which we can't intelligently manipulate. This is
why
results derived from single system, or one dimensional, EPR experiments
should be considered as a signpost of more interesting things to come,
because they do show instantaneous causation, but offer no methodology
for
meaningful control. But, it is a given in information theory, that
increasing the dimensions of control in a system lets more activity
happen.
The same holds true for 'simple' EPR, in that once you begin to
increase
the degrees of freedom in an experiment you are allowed to control more
action going on within the experiment. A singular case in point is
quantum
teleportation. this is an example where your 'channel' of information
flow
is defined by at least 2 major dimensions - a quantum dimension and a
classical dimension, and many minor dimensions which are defined by the
number of entangled particles involved with the system.

So, what is possible if the number of interacting particles is made
arbitrarily large, but still within bounds? The number of dimensions of
control increases directly in proportion with the degrees of freedom
within
the domain of quantum action. My findings indicate a simple directive:
as
the domain of quantum action increases, it begins to have an effect on
the
space-time around it. This back-action can, if it is large enough,
induce
similar effects within other quantum domains that are in close
proximity
to
the main one. Thus EPR like effects begin to be noticeable in otherwise
non
connected quantum domains. And, what are the dimensions of meaningful
control that link these domains? Are they characteristics such as spin,
or
other stochastically uncontrollable characteristics? No, they include
dynamical variables the experimenter can directly control such as
voltage
(particle kinetic energy) and current (particle density). In short,
utilizing the large scale quantum effect of mutual induction between
large
scale domains of quantum action, gives the experimenter the ability to
manipulate the effects between these now artificially entangled quantum
domains, allowing meaningful information to pass between them.

Besides allowing instantaneous information transfer to happen between
potentially spacelike separated domains, once useful domains are formed
(no
small feat) the following are also observed:

1 In any action where relativity theory comes into conflict with
quantum
theory where such a conflict will break a connection, relativity does
not
apply.

First there is no conflict. Secondly well known physical principles
prevent
FTL. From Rindler - Introduction to Special Relativity page 17.

Consider any signal or process whereby an event P causes an event L (or
whereby information is sent from P to L) at 'superluiminal' speed U c
relative to some frame S. Choose coordinates in S so that these events
both
occur on the x axis and let their time and distance separations be delta
t

0 and delta x 0. Then in the usual second frame S' traveling at
velocity
v we have from the Lorentz transformations:

delta t' = gamma (delta t - v delta x/c2) = gamma delta t (1 - vU/c2)]

Well, I could say that this simply doesn't apply because the delta t term
equals zero. So, t = t' = 0. Kinda messes everything up, doesn't it??



For c2/U v c we would then have delta t' 0 - hence there would
exist
frame in which L precedes P ie in which cause precedes effect ie
casualty
is
violated.

The problem with this math is in its interpretation. In the Lorentz
transform if vC, then you have the problem of taking the square root of a
negative number.

The problem has to do with the mathematical argument I presented - not with
what you want it to be.

The Lorentz transform becomes imaginary at this point. Does
this mean anything really, other than showing where this form of simple
math
no longer applies? Causality doesn't depend on relativity, nor can
transform
equations define causal actions.

Correct - it does not - which is why the argument is so powerful.

The strength of quantum mechanics is that
it needs no 'conversion' equations to make it work from any particular
perspective. The fact that QM doesn't even need such a concept (causality)
should offer a clue as to which theory is more robust.

The schrodenger equation fully preserves causalty. And even wave function
collapse has a cause - observation.

Damn, I could go into
this in much more depth, but this isn't a philosophy newsgroup so wouldn't
be appropriate.

Correct. But the philosophy of relativity is on topic - just not general
philosophical issues like claiming theories are not valid because they are
basically 'math constructs' and other such rot.

Suffice it to say I have never observed observed an event
where its effect preceeded its logical cause - even though a simple
definition of causality has not been observed. This just tells me there is
more to cause / effect relationships than is commonly believed.

Then you agree with my arguments conclusion - FTL is not possible.



Rindler then goes not discuss the severe logical implications of this -
basically we would be in deep **** - being able to for example kill a
rat
in
one frame but in the other see it come to life. Thus when the two
observers
come together again somehow the process of deceleration would have to
cause
the rat to die or come alive - a rather far fetched idea.. Many similar
situations can be envisaged.

Notice I only used the Lorentz transformations. No other assumption was
made. And it is well known the Lorentz transformations follow from the
POR
alone - see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Thus your claim
amounts
to a rejection of the POR - a claim for which we have zero experimental
evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - not the
rantings of someone who claims to have achieved FTL but has not been
able
to
demonstrate it.

Hmmm.... I don't agree my claim amounts to the total rejection of the
principle of relativity, only that it doesn't apply for non-inertial
frames.
And if, as I maintain, a superluminal communications device always
operates
with zero propagation time between devices, across all FOR

Then it operates with zero propagation time in inertial frames.

then it indeed is
its own reference frame, and though non-inertial, is still not acausal for
any possible observer. And as I have said in other posts, even if
classical
causality *is* violated, if no one is there to observe it, so what?

Exactly the same as any controversial claim not backed up by observation -
not worth much.

Maybe my
gizmo is violating causality in the andromeda galaxy - but since I am not
there to see it, and no one I know is ever going to go there to watch it
violating causality and report back to me, and any alien who happens to be
there and hears my transmission has no way to make the judgement I have
violated causlaity, like I said, so what?

The argument I gave is one of principle - it does not matter how far away
the receiver is. Of course an out would be it is not possible to in
principle have an inertial frame spanning the sender and receiver.

Bill



Bill

Quantum theory always comes first. Even if causality appears to be a
victim of this conflict (but upon closer observation, global causality
violations have not been observed which come into conflict with
observational ordering [locally], so it presently remains unclear if
our
notion of causality needs revising. I have spoken of this briefly in
other
posts).

2 Connected quantum domains are always 2-way, and instantaneous such
that
the first rule is always observed i.e. there is no frame order
dependence.

3 Quantum theory never contradicts itself in any observation, such
that
the
first two statements are always true.

4 Information transfer is not limited to only communications. Quantum
teleportation of macroscopic objects consisting of aggregations of many
particles is also possible, provided the domain of controlled quantum
actions is large enough to support it, and there is at least one degree
of
freedom for every particle event. Thus the only limit to the
teleportation
of a large object such as a human, is one of engineering and not one of
theory, provided rule 3 is not violated.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
There is an old Arabic saying that roughly goes: A single grain of
sand
can't be weighed, but many grains of sand can act together to make the
scale
swing decisively.

This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum
connectedness via entangled states yield no useful information
supporting
FTL, or instantaneous, information transfer. First off, most entangled
systems have only 2 particles in them. And the 2 particles make up
only
a
single system- so the only characteristics we can see are the
properties
of
the single particle, which we can't intelligently manipulate. This is
why
results derived from single system, or one dimensional, EPR
experiments
should be considered as a signpost of more interesting things to come,
because they do show instantaneous causation, but offer no methodology
for
meaningful control. But, it is a given in information theory, that
increasing the dimensions of control in a system lets more activity
happen.
The same holds true for 'simple' EPR, in that once you begin to
increase
the degrees of freedom in an experiment you are allowed to control
more
action going on within the experiment. A singular case in point is
quantum
teleportation. this is an example where your 'channel' of information
flow
is defined by at least 2 major dimensions - a quantum dimension and a
classical dimension, and many minor dimensions which are defined by
the
number of entangled particles involved with the system.

So, what is possible if the number of interacting particles is made
arbitrarily large, but still within bounds? The number of dimensions
of
control increases directly in proportion with the degrees of freedom
within
the domain of quantum action. My findings indicate a simple directive:
as
the domain of quantum action increases, it begins to have an effect on
the
space-time around it. This back-action can, if it is large enough,
induce
similar effects within other quantum domains that are in close
proximity
to
the main one. Thus EPR like effects begin to be noticeable in
otherwise
non
connected quantum domains. And, what are the dimensions of meaningful
control that link these domains? Are they characteristics such as
spin,
or
other stochastically uncontrollable characteristics? No, they include
dynamical variables the experimenter can directly control such as
voltage
(particle kinetic energy) and current (particle density). In short,
utilizing the large scale quantum effect of mutual induction between
large
scale domains of quantum action, gives the experimenter the ability to
manipulate the effects between these now artificially entangled
quantum
domains, allowing meaningful information to pass between them.

Besides allowing instantaneous information transfer to happen between
potentially spacelike separated domains, once useful domains are
formed
(no
small feat) the following are also observed:

1 In any action where relativity theory comes into conflict with
quantum
theory where such a conflict will break a connection, relativity does
not
apply.

First there is no conflict. Secondly well known physical principles
prevent
FTL. From Rindler - Introduction to Special Relativity page 17.

Consider any signal or process whereby an event P causes an event L (or
whereby information is sent from P to L) at 'superluiminal' speed U c
relative to some frame S. Choose coordinates in S so that these events
both
occur on the x axis and let their time and distance separations be
delta
t

0 and delta x 0. Then in the usual second frame S' traveling at
velocity
v we have from the Lorentz transformations:

delta t' = gamma (delta t - v delta x/c2) = gamma delta t (1 - vU/c2)]

Well, I could say that this simply doesn't apply because the delta t term
equals zero. So, t = t' = 0. Kinda messes everything up, doesn't it??



For c2/U v c we would then have delta t' 0 - hence there would
exist
frame in which L precedes P ie in which cause precedes effect ie
casualty
is
violated.

The problem with this math is in its interpretation. In the Lorentz
transform if vC, then you have the problem of taking the square root of
a
negative number.

The problem has to do with the mathematical argument I presented - not
with
what you want it to be.

Your argument outside of an inertial reference frame doesn't work. When
'cause' and 'event' ( I didn't say effect) lie outside their respective
light cones, the only avenue for any information transfer, meaningful or
not, is inside a purely quantum channel. Since this does happen in nature,
though the information transferred is not useful to us, change has still
occured. So Nature herself violates your maths as well. I am not at all
surprised. The cosmos will create -or violate- any rule in order to maintain
communications with all its parts. I present no new argument, just what I
observe one to be.


The Lorentz transform becomes imaginary at this point. Does
this mean anything really, other than showing where this form of simple
math
no longer applies? Causality doesn't depend on relativity, nor can
transform
equations define causal actions.

Correct - it does not - which is why the argument is so powerful.

You are coming close to saying causality depends on the lorentz
transforms... I don't think nature is as simple as that. The argument Robert
J. Kolker presents can't be so easily dismissed.


The strength of quantum mechanics is that
it needs no 'conversion' equations to make it work from any particular
perspective. The fact that QM doesn't even need such a concept
(causality)
should offer a clue as to which theory is more robust.

The schrodenger equation fully preserves causalty. And even wave function
collapse has a cause - observation.

Err, I don't think I am the first to think we actually have nothing to do
with wavefunction collapse.


Damn, I could go into
this in much more depth, but this isn't a philosophy newsgroup so
wouldn't
be appropriate.

Correct. But the philosophy of relativity is on topic - just not general
philosophical issues like claiming theories are not valid because they are
basically 'math constructs' and other such rot.

Not quite. Superluminal communication is the topic - relativity is a side
issue. How relativity fits with superluminal communication is not even a
side issue because it cannot be made to fit the basic framework relativity
depends on, the lorentzian transform.


Suffice it to say I have never observed observed an event
where its effect preceeded its logical cause - even though a simple
definition of causality has not been observed. This just tells me there
is
more to cause / effect relationships than is commonly believed.

Then you agree with my arguments conclusion - FTL is not possible.

No of course not. Superluminal communication is not possible within a
relativistic framework, that's all. Perhaps FTL does break causality in a
mundane way, but not in a global sense. A break with simple causality
doesn't mean the universe comes to a halt - there is evidence in the form
of naturally entangled states the exactly the opposite is true. Our universe
couldn't be what it is today if mundane causality weren't being violated on
a constant basis. QM give the process whereby this happens - so why should I
worry about it if I am using the same mencanism to accomplish my goals?




Rindler then goes not discuss the severe logical implications of this -
basically we would be in deep **** - being able to for example kill a
rat
in
one frame but in the other see it come to life. Thus when the two
observers
come together again somehow the process of deceleration would have to
cause
the rat to die or come alive - a rather far fetched idea.. Many
similar
situations can be envisaged.

Notice I only used the Lorentz transformations. No other assumption
was
made. And it is well known the Lorentz transformations follow from the
POR
alone - see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Thus your claim
amounts
to a rejection of the POR - a claim for which we have zero experimental
evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - not
the
rantings of someone who claims to have achieved FTL but has not been
able
to
demonstrate it.

Hmmm.... I don't agree my claim amounts to the total rejection of the
principle of relativity, only that it doesn't apply for non-inertial
frames.
And if, as I maintain, a superluminal communications device always
operates
with zero propagation time between devices, across all FOR

Then it operates with zero propagation time in inertial frames.

It is frame invariant. Even if the sender and reciever are in
relativistically acclerated frames propagation time between the two is zero.
But this does bring up an interesting point - how much frame distortion will
be accepted by my system before it fails? I realize the physical units are
themselves going to be experienceing relativistic effects and this
information should be reported. However, this frame distortion is simply
because you are trying to make the lorentz transforms work across a
non-inertial boundry. At worst it will cause the devices to fail operation
at some point due to noise effects shutting down the FTL pipeline.
Unfortunately, I can't do this type of experiment so the question remains
open.


then it indeed is
its own reference frame, and though non-inertial, is still not acausal
for
any possible observer. And as I have said in other posts, even if
classical
causality *is* violated, if no one is there to observe it, so what?

Exactly the same as any controversial claim not backed up by observation -
not worth much.

Whaddya mean? Look at all the relativistic electrons wasted in the making of
this posting?


Maybe my
gizmo is violating causality in the andromeda galaxy - but since I am not
there to see it, and no one I know is ever going to go there to watch it
violating causality and report back to me, and any alien who happens to
be
there and hears my transmission has no way to make the judgement I have
violated causlaity, like I said, so what?

The argument I gave is one of principle - it does not matter how far away
the receiver is. Of course an out would be it is not possible to in
principle have an inertial frame spanning the sender and receiver.

Yes, but I can't claim that out because there is no way for me to test the
assumption. But it sure does sound good!

Greysky


Bill



Bill

Quantum theory always comes first. Even if causality appears to be a
victim of this conflict (but upon closer observation, global causality
violations have not been observed which come into conflict with
observational ordering [locally], so it presently remains unclear if
our
notion of causality needs revising. I have spoken of this briefly in
other
posts).

2 Connected quantum domains are always 2-way, and instantaneous such
that
the first rule is always observed i.e. there is no frame order
dependence.

3 Quantum theory never contradicts itself in any observation, such
that
the
first two statements are always true.

4 Information transfer is not limited to only communications. Quantum
teleportation of macroscopic objects consisting of aggregations of
many
particles is also possible, provided the domain of controlled quantum
actions is large enough to support it, and there is at least one
degree
of
freedom for every particle event. Thus the only limit to the
teleportation
of a large object such as a human, is one of engineering and not one
of
theory, provided rule 3 is not violated.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
. com...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
m...
There is an old Arabic saying that roughly goes: A single grain of
sand
can't be weighed, but many grains of sand can act together to make
the
scale
swing decisively.

This exemplifies the main reason why experiments showing quantum
connectedness via entangled states yield no useful information
supporting
FTL, or instantaneous, information transfer. First off, most
entangled
systems have only 2 particles in them. And the 2 particles make up
only
a
single system- so the only characteristics we can see are the
properties
of
the single particle, which we can't intelligently manipulate. This
is
why
results derived from single system, or one dimensional, EPR
experiments
should be considered as a signpost of more interesting things to
come,
because they do show instantaneous causation, but offer no
methodology
for
meaningful control. But, it is a given in information theory, that
increasing the dimensions of control in a system lets more activity
happen.
The same holds true for 'simple' EPR, in that once you begin to
increase
the degrees of freedom in an experiment you are allowed to control
more
action going on within the experiment. A singular case in point is
quantum
teleportation. this is an example where your 'channel' of
information
flow
is defined by at least 2 major dimensions - a quantum dimension and
a
classical dimension, and many minor dimensions which are defined by
the
number of entangled particles involved with the system.

So, what is possible if the number of interacting particles is made
arbitrarily large, but still within bounds? The number of dimensions
of
control increases directly in proportion with the degrees of
freedom
within
the domain of quantum action. My findings indicate a simple
directive:
as
the domain of quantum action increases, it begins to have an effect
on
the
space-time around it. This back-action can, if it is large enough,
induce
similar effects within other quantum domains that are in close
proximity
to
the main one. Thus EPR like effects begin to be noticeable in
otherwise
non
connected quantum domains. And, what are the dimensions of
meaningful
control that link these domains? Are they characteristics such as
spin,
or
other stochastically uncontrollable characteristics? No, they
include
dynamical variables the experimenter can directly control such as
voltage
(particle kinetic energy) and current (particle density). In short,
utilizing the large scale quantum effect of mutual induction between
large
scale domains of quantum action, gives the experimenter the ability
to
manipulate the effects between these now artificially entangled
quantum
domains, allowing meaningful information to pass between them.

Besides allowing instantaneous information transfer to happen
between
potentially spacelike separated domains, once useful domains are
formed
(no
small feat) the following are also observed:

1 In any action where relativity theory comes into conflict with
quantum
theory where such a conflict will break a connection, relativity
does
not
apply.

First there is no conflict. Secondly well known physical principles
prevent
FTL. From Rindler - Introduction to Special Relativity page 17.

Consider any signal or process whereby an event P causes an event L
(or
whereby information is sent from P to L) at 'superluiminal' speed U
c
relative to some frame S. Choose coordinates in S so that these
events
both
occur on the x axis and let their time and distance separations be
delta
t

0 and delta x 0. Then in the usual second frame S' traveling at
velocity
v we have from the Lorentz transformations:

delta t' = gamma (delta t - v delta x/c2) = gamma delta t (1 -
vU/c2)]

Well, I could say that this simply doesn't apply because the delta t
term
equals zero. So, t = t' = 0. Kinda messes everything up, doesn't it??



For c2/U v c we would then have delta t' 0 - hence there would
exist
frame in which L precedes P ie in which cause precedes effect ie
casualty
is
violated.

The problem with this math is in its interpretation. In the Lorentz
transform if vC, then you have the problem of taking the square root
of
a
negative number.

The problem has to do with the mathematical argument I presented - not
with
what you want it to be.

Your argument outside of an inertial reference frame doesn't work.

Sure I never claimed it did.

When
'cause' and 'event' ( I didn't say effect) lie outside their respective
light cones, the only avenue for any information transfer, meaningful or
not, is inside a purely quantum channel.

What has that to do with non inertial frames?

Since this does happen in nature,
though the information transferred is not useful to us, change has still
occured.

No FTL information transfer has ever been detected. Claims by you to have
done is are not substantiated.

So Nature herself violates your maths as well.

How - by the illogic of you argument above?

I am not at all
surprised. The cosmos will create -or violate- any rule in order to
maintain
communications with all its parts. I present no new argument, just what I
observe one to be.

Correct you present no new argument - you just write rubbish.

Bill



The Lorentz transform becomes imaginary at this point. Does
this mean anything really, other than showing where this form of simple
math
no longer applies? Causality doesn't depend on relativity, nor can
transform
equations define causal actions.

Correct - it does not - which is why the argument is so powerful.

You are coming close to saying causality depends on the lorentz
transforms... I don't think nature is as simple as that. The argument
Robert
J. Kolker presents can't be so easily dismissed.


The strength of quantum mechanics is that
it needs no 'conversion' equations to make it work from any particular
perspective. The fact that QM doesn't even need such a concept
(causality)
should offer a clue as to which theory is more robust.

The schrodenger equation fully preserves causalty. And even wave
function
collapse has a cause - observation.

Err, I don't think I am the first to think we actually have nothing to do
with wavefunction collapse.


Damn, I could go into
this in much more depth, but this isn't a philosophy newsgroup so
wouldn't
be appropriate.

Correct. But the philosophy of relativity is on topic - just not
general
philosophical issues like claiming theories are not valid because they
are
basically 'math constructs' and other such rot.

Not quite. Superluminal communication is the topic - relativity is a side
issue. How relativity fits with superluminal communication is not even a
side issue because it cannot be made to fit the basic framework relativity
depends on, the lorentzian transform.


Suffice it to say I have never observed observed an event
where its effect preceeded its logical cause - even though a simple
definition of causality has not been observed. This just tells me there
is
more to cause / effect relationships than is commonly believed.

Then you agree with my arguments conclusion - FTL is not possible.

No of course not. Superluminal communication is not possible within a
relativistic framework, that's all. Perhaps FTL does break causality in a
mundane way, but not in a global sense. A break with simple causality
doesn't mean the universe comes to a halt - there is evidence in the
form
of naturally entangled states the exactly the opposite is true. Our
universe
couldn't be what it is today if mundane causality weren't being violated
on
a constant basis. QM give the process whereby this happens - so why should
I
worry about it if I am using the same mencanism to accomplish my goals?




Rindler then goes not discuss the severe logical implications of
this -
basically we would be in deep **** - being able to for example kill a
rat
in
one frame but in the other see it come to life. Thus when the two
observers
come together again somehow the process of deceleration would have to
cause
the rat to die or come alive - a rather far fetched idea.. Many
similar
situations can be envisaged.

Notice I only used the Lorentz transformations. No other assumption
was
made. And it is well known the Lorentz transformations follow from
the
POR
alone - see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Thus your claim
amounts
to a rejection of the POR - a claim for which we have zero
experimental
evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - not
the
rantings of someone who claims to have achieved FTL but has not been
able
to
demonstrate it.

Hmmm.... I don't agree my claim amounts to the total rejection of the
principle of relativity, only that it doesn't apply for non-inertial
frames.
And if, as I maintain, a superluminal communications device always
operates
with zero propagation time between devices, across all FOR

Then it operates with zero propagation time in inertial frames.

It is frame invariant. Even if the sender and reciever are in
relativistically acclerated frames propagation time between the two is
zero.
But this does bring up an interesting point - how much frame distortion
will
be accepted by my system before it fails? I realize the physical units are
themselves going to be experienceing relativistic effects and this
information should be reported. However, this frame distortion is simply
because you are trying to make the lorentz transforms work across a
non-inertial boundry. At worst it will cause the devices to fail operation
at some point due to noise effects shutting down the FTL pipeline.
Unfortunately, I can't do this type of experiment so the question remains
open.


then it indeed is
its own reference frame, and though non-inertial, is still not acausal
for
any possible observer. And as I have said in other posts, even if
classical
causality *is* violated, if no one is there to observe it, so what?

Exactly the same as any controversial claim not backed up by
observation -
not worth much.

Whaddya mean? Look at all the relativistic electrons wasted in the making
of
this posting?


Maybe my
gizmo is violating causality in the andromeda galaxy - but since I am
not
there to see it, and no one I know is ever going to go there to watch
it
violating causality and report back to me, and any alien who happens to
be
there and hears my transmission has no way to make the judgement I have
violated causlaity, like I said, so what?

The argument I gave is one of principle - it does not matter how far
away
the receiver is. Of course an out would be it is not possible to in
principle have an inertial frame spanning the sender and receiver.

Yes, but I can't claim that out because there is no way for me to test the
assumption. But it sure does sound good!

Greysky


Bill



Bill

Quantum theory always comes first. Even if causality appears to be a
victim of this conflict (but upon closer observation, global
causality
violations have not been observed which come into conflict with
observational ordering [locally], so it presently remains unclear if
our
notion of causality needs revising. I have spoken of this briefly in
other
posts).

2 Connected quantum domains are always 2-way, and instantaneous
such
that
the first rule is always observed i.e. there is no frame order
dependence.

3 Quantum theory never contradicts itself in any observation, such
that
the
first two statements are always true.

4 Information transfer is not limited to only communications.
Quantum
teleportation of macroscopic objects consisting of aggregations of
many
particles is also possible, provided the domain of controlled
quantum
actions is large enough to support it, and there is at least one
degree
of
freedom for every particle event. Thus the only limit to the
teleportation
of a large object such as a human, is one of engineering and not one
of
theory, provided rule 3 is not violated.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.