Starship Asterisk*

Harry:
- Check the credentials of the authors
- Compare data to multiple sources
- Check obsolescence of data
- Check objectivity of the author

Many of the web pages you refer to are written by authors without doctrines in the field of studies that they are commenting on. Philosophic writings do not make for good science; the level of difficulty is much less when writing to criticize an abridged and tainted interpretation of a complex data set or theory.

An example: Gravity lensing of BCR from super clusters. Saying it hasn’t been observed is not the same as stating “Gravity lensing cannot take place because … and that supports … ”, then commit the finding for a scrutinized review but the scientific community where the data set can be incorporated into other facets of a “Grand Theory”.

Once again, there are reasons why these sub theories are not accepted into the mainstream scientific community; they break more than they fix.

A simple exercise in logic:

- A steady state universe is true
- Quantum mechanics cannot be true
- Entanglement cannot be true
- Entanglement is true
- A steady state universe cannot be true

Exception: If you can prove time is also recycled.

I await your proof.

Hello Neried

Thats a good idea.

Sorry for putting you out.

Give me a few years.

I've just been thinking on entangled photons a bit more...

Suppose Detroit builds two identical cars. Say they are driven equally far, and finally they both stop running at the same moment after, say, 120,000 miles.

Are they in instantaneous communication with one another? Has information traveled from one car to the other at faster than light speed?

Or were they just so much the same as one another to start with as to have exhibited uncannily similar characteristics?

-Noel

You might have a good example of this if one were to get into an accident and the other simultaneously dented for no reason.

I would think that if you could get these entangled photons to resonate at alternating frequencies you could use them to transmit information by using an alternating frequency modulation process.

Hi,
i think that its important to remember that cars are man-made & their dynamics totally understood ..altho the Sat-Nav system could possibly lead to an automobilic on-car chat facitlity

i wondered if as BMAONe23 says there is a resonate frequency ..& this a unique frequecy to the specific entangled proton whether this would produce a kind of echo that caused an effect, rather than a transmission of information

there are no doubt whole area yet to be discovered & thats exciting, isnt it

Linx

linx wrote:Hi,
i think that its important to remember that cars are man-made & their dynamics totally understood

EXACTLY. Well, "totally" is a strong word, but you've got the concept of my example right.

We don't really know squat about what's in a photon, or even what IS a photon. It's an abstract concept we've chosen to represent observed phenomenon that's at times wave-like and particle-like. Personally I envision them as little nanoscopic brilliant spinning balls of energy, but I'll bet they don't *really* look like that. I'd guess my imagination's been influenced by Star Trek.

These entangled photons exhibit interesting properties, there's no question. However, when I see actual information being transferred at faster than light speeds, rather than just research projects being funded, I'll believe.

Hell, for all we know we really COULD be in a hyper complex computer simulation, and the laws of physics as we observe them are just manifestations of the implementation and processor speed.

-Noel

Entangled photons can be of any frequency, if we use the analogy of the cars that simultaneously dent when either is struck, the frequency would be the same as the size/speed of the car.

It's my understanding that external influences are not acting on these entangled photons; instead that they're making their own quantum choices simultaneously, and those choices happen to be the same, so the "dent the car" analogy is flawed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Noel
________________ Sorry, couldn't resist.

Dr. Skeptic wrote: Application:

Imagine a super massive star 20 light years away that has a high probability of going hyper-nova. An entanglement source is place 10 light years out directly between the solar system and the star, if/when the star goes hyper-nova, the detector could give 20 years of advanced warning before a visual warning could take place.

Of course, the designers of such a detector would have to get around the fact that observing the earthbound entangled particle would constitute measurement and would collapse the entanglement state, so they'd only get one shot at detection! They'd have to synchronize replacement of the entangled detector near the star with a fresh detector after every measurement.

Actually, there should be nonzero probability of measuring both the 'nothing's happening' state (call it 0) and the 'gone hypernova' state (call it 1), because the detector state is necessarily in a superposition of 0 and 1. Measuring 1 on Earth could mean either that the observer has just collapsed the detector wavefunction, forcing the detector at the star into a particular state, or that the star detector has tripped at some point since arriving at the star, and forced the earthbound detector state to 1 at that time. How would one know for sure whether a measurement simply collapsed the wavefunction or revealed the result of wavefunction collapse initiated from the other end?

Code:

if (speculation != science)
{
human = overly_arrogant; /* because everything we think
we "know" is really just an
approximation of reality */
}

Cute!

Of course, the designers of such a detector would have to get around the fact that observing the earthbound entangled particle would constitute measurement and would collapse the entanglement state, so they'd only get one shot at detection! They'd have to synchronize replacement of the entangled detector near the star with a fresh detector after every measurement.

The way it could work for information transmission is if the state of an incoming entangled photo could be known ahead of time, lets say all advancing photons had left spin and retreating photons had a right spin, the time, placement and any spin not being equal to left spin could be interpreted as transmitted information.

NoelC wrote:Hell, for all we know we really COULD be in a hyper complex computer simulation, and the laws of physics as we observe them are just manifestations of the implementation and processor speed.

-Noel

perhaps Saturn's north polar hexagon is due to the planet's poly count having been capped to speed up the rendering process!

MiniBooNE Results from Fermilab;

Science Daily — Scientists of the MiniBooNE1 experiment at the Department of Energy's Fermilab2 have announced their first findings. The MiniBooNE results resolve questions raised by observations of the LSND3 experiment in the 1990s that appeared to contradict findings of other neutrino experiments worldwide. MiniBooNE researchers showed conclusively that the LSND results could not be due to simple neutrino oscillation, a phenomenon in which one type of neutrino transforms into another type and back again.

The MiniBooNE collaboration ruled out the simple LSND oscillation interpretation by looking for signs of muon neutrinos oscillating into electron neutrinos in the region indicated by the LSND observations. The collaboration found no appearance of electron neutrinos as predicted by a simple two-neutrino oscillation scenario.

"It was very important to verify or refute the surprising LSND result," said Robin Staffin, DOE Associate Director of Science for High Energy Physics. "We never know what nature has in store for us. The MiniBooNE experiment was an important one to do and is to be complimented for a job well done."

"Our results are the culmination of many years of very careful and thorough analysis. This was really an extraordinary team effort," said MiniBooNE cospokesperson Janet Conrad of Columbia University. "We know that scientists everywhere have been eagerly waiting for our results."

The MiniBooNE collaboration used a blind-experiment technique to ensure the credibility of their analysis and results. While collecting their neutrino data, the MiniBooNE collaboration did not permit themselves access to data in the region, or "box," where they would expect to see the same signature of oscillations as LSND. When the MiniBooNE collaboration opened the box and "unblinded" its data less than three weeks ago, the telltale oscillation signature was absent.

- - - -

<< While collecting their neutrino data, the MiniBooNE collaboration did not permit themselves access to data in the region, or "box," where they would expect to see the same signature of oscillations as LSND. >>

So as not to influence the data the observers sequestered themselves from the results until completion so as not to 'collapse' the effects being observed by the instruments, which theoretically do not have 'consciousness' to collapse the proceedings! LOL