Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Science: hijacked by pseudo

This is the only thing that makes sense, in all your writing. I will do that

Thanks for your contribution,

ES

Extrasense ... you don't make any.

Please provide a single reference from a peer reviewed journal or college level textbook where statements are made that support what you wrote:

""entanglement" violates the principle of casuality, which is the paramount for any physical theory including quantum theory."

Because from where I sit your statement is complete nonsense.

ES:"This is the only thing that makes sense, in all your writing. I will do that."

Don't flatter yourself. You might sprain some cerebral muscle...Where are the arguuments supporting your statement? You know what they used to say, verba volant, scripta manent.

"Thanks for your contribution."

Yeak, yeah, yeah, you're welcome.

Now, since you have decided to actually publish something, you need to be potty-trained to this effect. So cut your usual mumbo-jumbo and humor me once again with your ARGUMENTS showing that entanglement violates causality. I wouldn't mind refs either(but do not use self-citations, i.e. don't ref a link to more of your usual ramblings). And maybe who knows, you will be able to sustain a serious discussion on the topic for more than one post. Wouldn't that be somethin'?

I'm touched by your expression of concern for extrasense, but I somehow think that it is slightly misplaced. You and I both know what it is to do research and write papers for technical publication. It's a ruddy pain, and it takes enormous amounts of persistence and concentration.

Let's face it, you cannot sprain what you do not possess.

A.R.:"I'm touched by your expression of concern for extrasense, but I somehow think that it is slightly misplaced."

You might be right, but I think it is better if he channels all his energy in something more useful than ranting and whining. On the other hand, I have seen the same change in Uncle Al, and it was for the best.

A.R.:"You and I both know what it is to do research and write papers for technical publication. It's a ruddy pain, and it takes enormous amounts of persistence and concentration."

You are right, but I think once again that the effort is worth the pain and ruddiness. What surprises me though is the fact that he should have been aware of many "publishing" details, since he claims to have a master. And he is not.

Well, we shall see. However, up to this moment, you seem to have been entirely right.


Let's face it, you cannot sprain what you do not possess.

Well, I have even better proof: that there is no entanglement at all.

I have already submitted a paper to that effect, along with dislodging Shor's algorithm.

Lets see now, how the pseudoids will squirm

ES

ES:"Well, I have even better proof: that there is no entanglement at all."

You really have a comprehension problem. Let me spell if for you again: if entanglement does not exist, how can it violate causality?But then it was also you who stated that entanglement violates causality. Arguments my dear Watson, arguments and proofs, not words.

ES:"I have already submitted a paper to that effect, along with dislodging Shor's algorithm."

Both in one paper? So soon? Boy, you are a fast writer. Where can I download the draft(s) from? Or better, so that we don't have a problem with your identity, upload your drafts on your martian life website, remove any information pertinent to your identity, and let me know so that I can download them and read them.

ES:"Lets see now, how the pseudoids will squirm"

I can't wait to see the tabloids...

QC could still fail if 't Hooft is right See here.

I take it back, you won

If measurements are Unitary, and their operators commute, their results are independent.

ES

And if entanglement exists then the properties of the entagled entity are explicitly caused by measuring its entangled partner.

That you don't understand how this happens does not violate cause and effect.

It does not exist. forget about it. there is no such thing. it is a hoax.

ES

Do you guys mind if I interrupt this beatdown a moment?

I have tried to keep up with the general release info on quantum theory and entanglements. I find it facinating and exciting in its possibilities - I see things as a Sci-Fi writer/futurist.

When I find the more technical information, I will admit the formulae doesn't mean much to this liberal arts major/science fan and I would like to get a couple of opinions from folks more "in the trenches" with what is being discovered.

Entanglement - to me that opens up the possibility of developing what the genre literature calls "sub space communicators". Practical example - to give on earth scientists and technicians real time control and data from a probe intercepting Pluto/Charon - elimiates the speed of light delay in information transfer.

Is this a wacky concept - not that it has to be substanciated at this time, we are just testing the idea/concept/hypothesis, but is there anything currently summized that would outlaw such a future application of this phenomenon, or any that might add support to such a development?

Are there any research papers or sites that a relative layman such as myself should bookmark for further information?

Thanks in advance - let the beatdown continue. I am not impressed by Socratic arguements.
(That is one of the tactics of switching the burden of proof as noted above)

With respect to publications written for the laypublic I would seriously suggest a trip to your local library and pick up copies of Scientific American: December issue. If I recall correctly the December issue, perhaps it is January, contains an index to articles for the previous year. There you will find good, understandable, discussions of these subjects.

With respects to ES's claim that entanglement doesn't exist ... no doubt he can offer some "proof" such as paper's written in peer reviewed journals that provide an alternative explanation. Perhaps he can explain why it is that so many lab experiment has demonstrated it. Perhaps he has an alternative explanation, based on theory not fantasy, as to how IBM and others have successfully teleported the properties of particles instantaneously. Perhaps but I doubt it.

I think ES is standing in the darkness proclaiming that reality isn't what it is because he doesn't like it and understand it.

Well many of us don't understand it: Actually all of us. But we aren't afraid of it either.

Hooray!
This is where the whole thing belongs.
Why would you care is it correct or not, as a Sci-Fi writer/futurist? Go ahead, and explore the human consequences of what is being floated as a science

ES

Tell us, what is your level in quantum theory.
How many courses have you taken?

You need to understand books like Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics", to understand the proof "that entanglement doesn't exist."

ES

Here is a great Sci-Fi idea: a book about a society, where science was hijacked by the pseudoscience


es

Just keep the heat down on the beatdown or I'll have to wave my magic toothpick...

As a Science and Science Fiction Writer, one of the innumerable vast army of folks who look at things that are not and say "Why not?", I have to say that for the most part the writer's goal is to get the reader to read what he/she writes. If too many things conflict with the reader's point of view on reality, it generates bucketfulls and bucketfulls of "Cognitive Dissonance" which eventually annoys the reader to the point that he/she cannot wrap their imagination around the inconsistencies, and you lose them and the copyright royalties you might have gotten from the four to ten other people he/she would have talked into buying it. A certain amount of Plausibility, not necessarily absolute reality, must exist to hold the work together. Writers need to be consistent, and Sci Fi writers neew to at least seem plausible.

There's an excellent book out by Charles Sheffield called "Borderlands of Science" (2000:Baen Publishing Enterprises:Riverdale, NY) $6.29 from Amazon.com) Caution: There are several books out by this title; check author's name carefully.

Sheffield gives an overview, suitable for the non-calculus mathematical set, i.e. lay persons who are interested in Science, of modern technology and a state-of-the-science review in a number of technical fields. I have his 1999 edition in paperback, and it is a nice reference for my Sci-Fi writing.

Amazon has several thorough reviews of the book, so I won't bore you with mine.

thanks,

I should subscribe to Scientific American, a great publication, but I do purchase 5 or 6 issues a year thru bookstores.

I found a great book, written by Ben Bova and others that included a lot of good info on orbital mechanics, rate of spin for artifical grav, general concepts for future space engine designs and speculations on alien lifeforms.

I will hunt down the "Borderlands" book as well.

ES -

There are many humorous and horrendous examples of pseudoscience being used to dictate everything from personal preferences to national policies. Lots of stories left to be told.

The phenomenon labeled "Quantum Entanglement" is poorly understood at this point. That only speaks to our inability to test and interpret data, not that it does not exist.

My label of pseudoscience would be like Astrology or Phrenology or Eugenics or Creation Science - stuff like that. Efforts to probe and understand the underlying foundation of matter will be fraught with false starts and dead ends, but aside from the occasional egotistical researcher defending his/her special insight, the scientific process eventually will find a common understanding.

ES:"...I take it back, you won.
If measurements are Unitary, and their operators commute, their results are independent...
...[Entanglement]It does not exist. forget about it. there is no such thing. it is a hoax."

Oh, there you go again. I was off a few days and you are back to your old cheap tricks.

So, picking up the tread where we left it, WHAT ARE YOUR ARGUMENTS supporting this claim(etntanglement vs causality).
BTW, where are the drafts of the papers you allegedly submitted? By now you could have prepared several times for downloading from your martian site. Or is this once again just gurgling from your part?
If you don't like the scheme I proposed for dowloading the drafts, I can offer you several other ways in which we can annonimously exchange info. Downloading from your site is just easier.

Here is the proof I suggested:

Lets consider a more general case, with arbitrary state | S >, and unitary M1, M2, so
MT = (Mtransposed)*
that M1T * M1 =1, M2T * M2 =1,
and [ M1 , M2 ] = 0;
It holds, that
< S | M2T * M1 * M2 | S > = < S | M2T * M2 * M1 | S > = < S | M1 | S >
This shows that result of a measurement M1 does not change, whether or not the measurement M2 had preceded it.

es