# [ExI] Fwd: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Sun Sep 6 15:37:15 UTC 2015

```On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> ​>> ​
>> ​For any photon that made it through​ my filter set at 78 degrees there
>> is a 100% chance its brother distant photon will make it through its filter
>> set at 78 degrees and for any photon that is stopped my my filter there is
>> a 100% chance its brother photon will get through a filter set at 168 (78
>> +90) degrees.
>>
>
> ​> ​
> Then that's a scheme by which FTL communication is possible:
>

​No it is not. Suppose we decide to use Morse code and a passed photon is a
dot and a stopped photon is a dash and you want to send me a dot, you set
your filter at 78 degrees and send a photon at it, but you have no control
of if that photon will get through your filter or not, the chances are
always 50-50. So if I set my filter at 78 degrees and the photon is stopped
all I know is that the same thing happened at your filter, I don't know if
that's what you wanted to happen or not, I don't know if you were trying to
send me a dot or a dash, its 50-50.  ​

> ​> ​
> your filter's angle can be detected (to very high probability) at some
> distant point.
>

​No it can not be. Regardless of the angle you set your filter at you will
always get a apparently random sequence of passes and stops with an equal
number of both. Let's say you do things systematically and get a long
sequence of passes and stops of your filter set at 1 degree,  then do the
same thing at 2 degrees, then 3 degrees etc. You would notice nothing
special about 78 degrees, it would look just as random as all the others.
It would only be when you got in your spaceship to travel to meet me (which
can only be done at the speed of light or less) and we compare records that
we would notice that there was something special about 78 degrees after all
because your apparently random sequence of passes and stops is identical to
my
apparently random sequence of passes and stops
​ at that particular angle but at no other angle. The bottom line is
that influences can​ transferred faster than light but not information.

​> ​
>> ​I don't know what you mean by "​does not map", all I know it that the 2
>> boxes I described (and who Bell first described in 1964) COULD be built and
>> hidden lookup tables, even lookup tables written by God, can not duplicate
>> the way those boxes behave.
>>
>
> ​> ​
> I mean that your hypothetical-but-can't-exist boxes do not model the way
> photons work.
>

​You are entirely incorrect. ​Alain Aspect actually built the equivalent of
my boxes in 1982 and published his results in Physical Review Letters; he
proved experimentally that Bell's inequality was violated and thus lookup
tables (hidden variables) can NEVER explain how photons behave, at least
not unless 3/4 is smaller than 2/3 and I don't think it is.

​>> ​
>> Every particle has a Schrodinger Wave associated with it
>>
>
> ​> ​
> Irrelevant: we're discussing photons.
>

​A photon IS a particle, and everything obeys Quantum Mechanics. And if you
don't like photons you can get the same weird results with electrons
and a Stern–Gerlach
magnet as you get with photons and polarizing filters. You can do the 2
slit experiment with electrons too, it's even been done with something as
large as 60 carbon atoms in the form of a Buckyball.

> ​> ​
> you've pretty much ruled out that those boxes could actually be built.

You're not saying why they can't be built, and you're also ​
ignoring the
​rather important ​
fact that
​33 years ago ​
they
​ WERE built.​

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150906/556cab2a/attachment.html>
```