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

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 8:37 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

But different amplitudes.  This is how that 3-sunglass trick works: the
second sunglasses take the part of the photon aligned with that pair and
passes it on to the third.

Alternately, instead of the more-distant point having filters, have film to
detect the angle of polarization.  Like you said, enough photons will
create a smear; if the existence of a filter means the photons must be at
one of a set of 90 degree separate polarizations, then the angle (or
existence) of the resulting lines can tell what angle your filter is set to
(or whether it is engaged at all).


> ​You are entirely incorrect. ​Alain Aspect actually built the equivalent
> of my boxes in 1982
>

No, he did an apparatus with photons.  That is not the equivalent of your
boxes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150906/de15a83b/attachment.html>