Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 ET signals just get ignored because uncomfortable for people to accept; so 
they form a mindset based on false physics paradigm
Tesla detected alien signals
>>In 1901, while Tesla was conducting experiments tapping into the earth's 
>>geomagnetic pulse for sending electronic messages, his sensitive equipment 
>>began picking up mysterious rythmic beeping signals. Tesla would later allege 
>>that these signal were of alien origin, as he explained in "Talking with the 
>>Planets," a 10-page article published in Collier's Weekly (February 9th, 
>>1901), republished here. In describing the alien signals, Tesla writes: "The 
>>Martians, or the inhabitants of whatever planet had signalled to us, would 
>>understand at once that we had caught their message across the gulf of space 
>>and had sent back a response. To convey a knowledge of form by such means is, 
>>while very difficult, not impossible, and I have already found a way of doing 
>>it."<>I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction 
>>that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.<<
I think its bluff.
Go back to Einstein 1905 when he started all this relativity madness, he never 
said anything about there being "information speed". 

Its just something that relativists have had to invent to try to save 
relativity.
What they believe is relativity; they have just got all wrong.
Nothing in Einstein 1905 about c being a limiting speed; its just a 
misinterpretation that they impose and go to absurd lengths to try to save.










On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:13:50 BST, H LV  wrote:  
 
 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

  
I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about 
superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and even 
classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than the speed of 
light.
 
This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c!   : 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8


I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction that 
the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.


 
 
It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as matter is 
able to provide an extra force:
 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations
 
 
The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4) physics 
to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force, gravity etc..
 
It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system is 
instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D orthogonal to 
the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but an entangled system 
looks like a black hole and thus it is external to the horizon of GR!
 
Discussion:
 
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory
 
J.W.
 
PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR but this 
is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based) EM force...
 
 




Quantum entanglement suggests that a transfer of information does not 
necessarily require a transfer of energy.
It seems to me that a dynamical geometry program exemplifies information 
transfer without energy. For example, imagine a horizontal line with two 
points. One point (O)  is fixed and the other point (A) is movable. Constuct 
circle which is centred on point O and such the circumference of the circle 
passes through A. The circle intercepts the line at a second point B. If the 
point A is dragged left or right the 

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[H LV]

In Sabine's most recent video on the search for ET,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwOcc-buSsg
she concludes by saying that the reason we have not detected ET is that we
have not developed the right technology to pick up their communication. If
there is anyway to send information faster than the speed of light then
that is what the aliens are using. She insists there is nothing wrong with
FTL communication. It is just that we don't know how to do it.

Harry

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:32 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> i.e. the modern version of Ptolemaic epicycles
>
> On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:31:32 BST, ROGER ANDERTON <
> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the
> introduction that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.<<
>
> I think its bluff.
>
> Go back to Einstein 1905 when he started all this relativity madness, he
> never said anything about there being "information speed".
>
> Its just something that relativists have had to invent to try to save
> relativity.
>
> What they believe is relativity; they have just got all wrong.
>
> Nothing in Einstein 1905 about c being a limiting speed; its just a
> misinterpretation that they impose and go to absurd lengths to try to save.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:13:50 BST, H LV  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
> I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about
> superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and even
> classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than the
> speed of light.
>
> This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c!   :
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8
> 
>
>
> I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction
> that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.
>
>
> It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as matter
> is able to provide an extra force:
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations
>
> The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4)
> physics to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force,
> gravity etc..
>
> It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system
> is instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D
> orthogonal to the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but an
> entangled system looks like a black hole and thus it is external to the
> horizon of GR!
>
> Discussion:
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory
>
> J.W.
>
> PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR but
> this is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based) EM
> force...
>
>
>
> Quantum entanglement suggests that a transfer of information does not
> necessarily require a transfer of energy.
>
> It seems to me that a dynamical geometry program exemplifies information
> transfer without energy. For example, imagine a horizontal line with two
> points. One point (O)  is fixed and the other point (A) is movable.
> Constuct circle which is centred on point O and such the circumference of
> the circle passes through A. The circle intercepts the line at a second
> point B. If the point A is dragged left or right the radius of the circle
> increases or decreases and this motion instantaneously changes the location
> of point B without a transfer of energy. "Dragged" is used metaphorically
> so no inertia or forces of any kind cause the point B to move in the
> opposite direction of point A.  One could say this is just an exercise in
> abstract geometry which does not represent the "real" world, but why should
> such geometric relationships be excluded from the domain of what is real?
>
> Harry
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> On 12.06.2020 18:25, H LV wrote:
>
> Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as
> evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I think
> this attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical models have been
> tremendously successful at describing patterns in nature. Second,  the
> structure of the mathematical models themselves can suggest the existence
> of novel particles such as the positron. Third, mathematical problems seem
> to be eventually rectified at a later date.
>
> Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have led
> physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
> For example the mathematics of special relativity allows for the existence
> of tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far I know tachyons have
> never been detected and their absence has never led physicists to 

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 i.e. the modern version of Ptolemaic epicycles

On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:31:32 BST, ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:  
 
  
>>I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction 
>>that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.<<
I think its bluff.
Go back to Einstein 1905 when he started all this relativity madness, he never 
said anything about there being "information speed". 

Its just something that relativists have had to invent to try to save 
relativity.
What they believe is relativity; they have just got all wrong.
Nothing in Einstein 1905 about c being a limiting speed; its just a 
misinterpretation that they impose and go to absurd lengths to try to save.










On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:13:50 BST, H LV  wrote:  
 
 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

  
I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about 
superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and even 
classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than the speed of 
light.
 
This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c!   : 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8


I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction that 
the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.


 
 
It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as matter is 
able to provide an extra force:
 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations
 
 
The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4) physics 
to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force, gravity etc..
 
It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system is 
instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D orthogonal to 
the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but an entangled system 
looks like a black hole and thus it is external to the horizon of GR!
 
Discussion:
 
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory
 
J.W.
 
PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR but this 
is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based) EM force...
 
 




Quantum entanglement suggests that a transfer of information does not 
necessarily require a transfer of energy.
It seems to me that a dynamical geometry program exemplifies information 
transfer without energy. For example, imagine a horizontal line with two 
points. One point (O)  is fixed and the other point (A) is movable. Constuct 
circle which is centred on point O and such the circumference of the circle 
passes through A. The circle intercepts the line at a second point B. If the 
point A is dragged left or right the radius of the circle increases or 
decreases and this motion instantaneously changes the location of point B 
without a transfer of energy. "Dragged" is used metaphorically so no inertia or 
forces of any kind cause the point B to move in the opposite direction of point 
A.  One could say this is just an exercise in abstract geometry which does not 
represent the "real" world, but why should such geometric relationships be 
excluded from the domain of what is real? 
Harry

Harry

 
On 12.06.2020 18:25, H LV wrote:
  
   Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as 
evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I think this 
attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical models have been 
tremendously successful at describing patterns in nature. Second,  the 
structure of the mathematical models themselves can suggest the existence of 
novel particles such as the positron. Third, mathematical problems seem to be 
eventually rectified at a later date.   
  Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have led 
physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. For 
example the mathematics of special relativity allows for the existence of 
tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far I know tachyons have never 
been detected and their absence has never led physicists to doubt the validity 
of special relativity.
 
 Harry   
  On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:19 PM Che  wrote:
  
  
  
  On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON  
wrote:
  
   >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective 
domains<< 
  When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving; general 
relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and quantum mechanics 
supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no maths for that is 
presented as to precisely when equations from such theories fail.
 
  Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..? 
  
  
  
  
  
    
   
  
  On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV  wrote:  
  
 
  On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
 

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 
>>I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction 
>>that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.<<
I think its bluff.
Go back to Einstein 1905 when he started all this relativity madness, he never 
said anything about there being "information speed". 

Its just something that relativists have had to invent to try to save 
relativity.
What they believe is relativity; they have just got all wrong.
Nothing in Einstein 1905 about c being a limiting speed; its just a 
misinterpretation that they impose and go to absurd lengths to try to save.










On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:13:50 BST, H LV  wrote:  
 
 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

  
I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about 
superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and even 
classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than the speed of 
light.
 
This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c!   : 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8


I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction that 
the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.


 
 
It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as matter is 
able to provide an extra force:
 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations
 
 
The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4) physics 
to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force, gravity etc..
 
It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system is 
instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D orthogonal to 
the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but an entangled system 
looks like a black hole and thus it is external to the horizon of GR!
 
Discussion:
 
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory
 
J.W.
 
PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR but this 
is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based) EM force...
 
 




Quantum entanglement suggests that a transfer of information does not 
necessarily require a transfer of energy.
It seems to me that a dynamical geometry program exemplifies information 
transfer without energy. For example, imagine a horizontal line with two 
points. One point (O)  is fixed and the other point (A) is movable. Constuct 
circle which is centred on point O and such the circumference of the circle 
passes through A. The circle intercepts the line at a second point B. If the 
point A is dragged left or right the radius of the circle increases or 
decreases and this motion instantaneously changes the location of point B 
without a transfer of energy. "Dragged" is used metaphorically so no inertia or 
forces of any kind cause the point B to move in the opposite direction of point 
A.  One could say this is just an exercise in abstract geometry which does not 
represent the "real" world, but why should such geometric relationships be 
excluded from the domain of what is real? 
Harry

Harry

 
On 12.06.2020 18:25, H LV wrote:
  
   Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as 
evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I think this 
attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical models have been 
tremendously successful at describing patterns in nature. Second,  the 
structure of the mathematical models themselves can suggest the existence of 
novel particles such as the positron. Third, mathematical problems seem to be 
eventually rectified at a later date.   
  Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have led 
physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. For 
example the mathematics of special relativity allows for the existence of 
tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far I know tachyons have never 
been detected and their absence has never led physicists to doubt the validity 
of special relativity.
 
 Harry   
  On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:19 PM Che  wrote:
  
  
  
  On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON  
wrote:
  
   >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective 
domains<< 
  When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving; general 
relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and quantum mechanics 
supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no maths for that is 
presented as to precisely when equations from such theories fail.
 
  Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..? 
  
  
  
  
  
    
   
  
  On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV  wrote:  
  
 
  On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:
  
   >>Thoughts?<< 
  there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity) with 
quantum 

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[H LV]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about
> superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and even
> classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than the
> speed of light.
>
> This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c!   :
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8
> 
>

I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction
that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.

>
> It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as matter
> is able to provide an extra force:
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations
>
> The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4)
> physics to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force,
> gravity etc..
>
> It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system
> is instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D
> orthogonal to the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but an
> entangled system looks like a black hole and thus it is external to the
> horizon of GR!
>
> Discussion:
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory
>
> J.W.
>
> PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR but
> this is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based) EM
> force...
>
>
>
Quantum entanglement suggests that a transfer of information does not
necessarily require a transfer of energy.

It seems to me that a dynamical geometry program exemplifies information
transfer without energy. For example, imagine a horizontal line with two
points. One point (O)  is fixed and the other point (A) is movable.
Constuct circle which is centred on point O and such the circumference of
the circle passes through A. The circle intercepts the line at a second
point B. If the point A is dragged left or right the radius of the circle
increases or decreases and this motion instantaneously changes the location
of point B without a transfer of energy. "Dragged" is used metaphorically
so no inertia or forces of any kind cause the point B to move in the
opposite direction of point A.  One could say this is just an exercise in
abstract geometry which does not represent the "real" world, but why should
such geometric relationships be excluded from the domain of what is real?

Harry


Harry




> On 12.06.2020 18:25, H LV wrote:
>
> Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as
> evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I think
> this attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical models have been
> tremendously successful at describing patterns in nature. Second,  the
> structure of the mathematical models themselves can suggest the existence
> of novel particles such as the positron. Third, mathematical problems seem
> to be eventually rectified at a later date.
>
> Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have led
> physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
> For example the mathematics of special relativity allows for the existence
> of tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far I know tachyons have
> never been detected and their absence has never led physicists to doubt the
> validity of special relativity.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:19 PM Che  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their
>>> respective domains<<
>>>
>>> When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving;
>>> general relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and
>>> quantum mechanics supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no
>>> maths for that is presented as to precisely when equations from such
>>> theories fail.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
>>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Thoughts?<<
>>>
>>> there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity)
>>> with quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them
>>> then they are not on solid ground.
>>>
>>>
>>> I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any
>>> experiment needing simultaneity.
>>> On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics and SR/GR,
>>> instead of trying to change one or the other or both, it might be
>>> preferable to accept them as each true within their respective 

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 13 Jun 2020 00:27:41 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory

Tesla assumed that the signal went around the Earth. If one instead assumes a 
light speed signal through the Earth
across the diameter, one gets the same result. I.e. (Pi x D) / 2D = Pi/2. 

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about 
superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and 
even classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than 
the speed of light.


This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c!   
: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8 



It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as 
matter is able to provide an extra force:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations

The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4) 
physics to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force, 
gravity etc..


It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system 
is instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D 
orthogonal to the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but 
an entangled system looks like a black hole and thus it is external to 
the horizon of GR!


Discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory

J.W.

PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR 
but this is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based) 
EM force...



On 12.06.2020 18:25, H LV wrote:
Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as 
evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I 
think this attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical 
models have been tremendously successful at describing patterns in 
nature. Second,  the structure of the mathematical models themselves 
can suggest the existence of novel particles such as the positron. 
Third, mathematical problems seem to be eventually rectified at a 
later date.


Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have 
led physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum 
mechanics. For example the mathematics of special relativity allows 
for the existence of tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far 
I know tachyons have never been detected and their absence has never 
led physicists to doubt the validity of special relativity.


Harry

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:19 PM Che > wrote:




On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>>
wrote:

>>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective 
domains<<

When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of
handwaving; general relativity is often said to breakdown at
the singularity, and quantum mechanics supposedly fails to be
able to deal with gravity; but no maths for that is presented
as to precisely when equations from such theories fail.


Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..?








On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

>>Thoughts?<<

there are problems combining relativity (especially
general relativity) with quantum physics, so when people
try to talk from things combining them then they are not
on solid ground.


I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to
dismiss any experiment needing simultaneity.
On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics
and SR/GR, instead of trying to change one or the other or
both, it might be preferable to accept them as each true
within their respective domains and build a bridge between the
domains by integrating them technologically instead trying to
merge them into a single mathematical theory.

Harry


From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated
and misunderstood so false claims are made about it. My
latest video-I think it was mainly written by his wife.





On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo

I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be
used to send an FLT message. What is overlooked is that an
indeterminate state, i.e. unmeasured state is also a type
of information.

If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised
clocks (which is possible in SR) then the transmitter can
send a message by a sequence of binary choices: either
measure or not measure the particle's spin in the diagonal

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[H LV]

Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as
evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I think
this attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical models have been
tremendously successful at describing patterns in nature. Second,  the
structure of the mathematical models themselves can suggest the existence
of novel particles such as the positron. Third, mathematical problems seem
to be eventually rectified at a later date.

Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have led
physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
For example the mathematics of special relativity allows for the existence
of tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far I know tachyons have
never been detected and their absence has never led physicists to doubt the
validity of special relativity.

Harry

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:19 PM Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
> wrote:
>
>> >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their
>> respective domains<<
>>
>> When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving;
>> general relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and
>> quantum mechanics supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no
>> maths for that is presented as to precisely when equations from such
>> theories fail.
>>
>
> Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON <
>> r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Thoughts?<<
>>
>> there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity)
>> with quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them
>> then they are not on solid ground.
>>
>>
>> I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any
>> experiment needing simultaneity.
>> On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics and SR/GR,
>> instead of trying to change one or the other or both, it might be
>> preferable to accept them as each true within their respective domains and
>> build a bridge between the domains by integrating them technologically
>> instead trying to merge them into a single mathematical theory.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood
>> so false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly
>> written by his wife.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
>> https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo
>>
>> I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send
>> an FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e.
>> unmeasured state is also a type of information.
>>
>> If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is
>> possible in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of
>> binary choices: either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the
>> diagonal direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will be
>> meaningfully informed by the sequence of the transmitter's choices.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[H LV]

By "domain" I mean something more like a world-view.
The mechanical philosophers of the 17th century gave modern physics the
world-view that matter is to be analysed as something
that is inactive, inanimate or dead. They also insisted that physics must
explain how things come about using only material and mechanical
notions of causation. Other types of causation such as formal and
teleological causation were characterised as "occult".

Harry



On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their
> respective domains<<
>
> When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving;
> general relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and
> quantum mechanics supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no
> maths for that is presented as to precisely when equations from such
> theories fail.
>
> On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
> wrote:
>
> >>Thoughts?<<
>
> there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity)
> with quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them
> then they are not on solid ground.
>
>
> I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any
> experiment needing simultaneity.
> On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics and SR/GR,
> instead of trying to change one or the other or both, it might be
> preferable to accept them as each true within their respective domains and
> build a bridge between the domains by integrating them technologically
> instead trying to merge them into a single mathematical theory.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood
> so false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly
> written by his wife.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV 
> wrote:
>
>
> Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
> https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo
>
> I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an
> FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e.
> unmeasured state is also a type of information.
>
> If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is
> possible in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of
> binary choices: either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the
> diagonal direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will be
> meaningfully informed by the sequence of the transmitter's choices.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[H LV]

Freeman Dyson explains why he is comfortable without unification:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcicI_GJGcM
Harry

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their
> respective domains<<
>
> When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving;
> general relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and
> quantum mechanics supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no
> maths for that is presented as to precisely when equations from such
> theories fail.
>
> On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
> wrote:
>
> >>Thoughts?<<
>
> there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity)
> with quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them
> then they are not on solid ground.
>
>
> I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any
> experiment needing simultaneity.
> On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics and SR/GR,
> instead of trying to change one or the other or both, it might be
> preferable to accept them as each true within their respective domains and
> build a bridge between the domains by integrating them technologically
> instead trying to merge them into a single mathematical theory.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood
> so false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly
> written by his wife.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV 
> wrote:
>
>
> Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
> https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo
>
> I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an
> FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e.
> unmeasured state is also a type of information.
>
> If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is
> possible in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of
> binary choices: either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the
> diagonal direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will be
> meaningfully informed by the sequence of the transmitter's choices.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[Che]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their
> respective domains<<
>
> When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving;
> general relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and
> quantum mechanics supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no
> maths for that is presented as to precisely when equations from such
> theories fail.
>

Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..?








>
>
> On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
> wrote:
>
> >>Thoughts?<<
>
> there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity)
> with quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them
> then they are not on solid ground.
>
>
> I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any
> experiment needing simultaneity.
> On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics and SR/GR,
> instead of trying to change one or the other or both, it might be
> preferable to accept them as each true within their respective domains and
> build a bridge between the domains by integrating them technologically
> instead trying to merge them into a single mathematical theory.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood
> so false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly
> written by his wife.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV 
> wrote:
>
>
> Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
> https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo
>
> I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an
> FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e.
> unmeasured state is also a type of information.
>
> If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is
> possible in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of
> binary choices: either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the
> diagonal direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will be
> meaningfully informed by the sequence of the transmitter's choices.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective 
 >>domains<<
When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving; general 
relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and quantum mechanics 
supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no maths for that is 
presented as to precisely when equations from such theories fail. 

On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV  wrote:  
 
 
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON  
wrote:

 >>Thoughts?<<
there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity) with 
quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them then 
they are not on solid ground.


I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any 
experiment needing simultaneity. On the issue reconciling the two domains of 
quantum mechanics and SR/GR, instead of trying to change one or the other or 
both, it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their 
respective domains and build a bridge between the domains by integrating them 
technologically instead trying to merge them into a single mathematical theory.
Harry

 
>From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood so 
>false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly written 
>by his wife.




On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV  wrote: 
 
 
 Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine 
Hossenfelderhttps://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo

I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an FLT 
message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e. unmeasured 
state is also a type of information. 
If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is possible 
in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of binary choices: 
either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the diagonal direction at 
a given time. What the receiver detects will be meaningfully informed by the 
sequence of the transmitter's choices. 

Thoughts?
Harry
  
  

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[H LV]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> >>Thoughts?<<
>
> there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity)
> with quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them
> then they are not on solid ground.
>
>
I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any
experiment needing simultaneity.
On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics and SR/GR,
instead of trying to change one or the other or both, it might be
preferable to accept them as each true within their respective domains and
build a bridge between the domains by integrating them technologically
instead trying to merge them into a single mathematical theory.

Harry




> From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood
> so false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly
> written by his wife.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV 
> wrote:
>
>
> Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
> https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo
>
> I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an
> FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e.
> unmeasured state is also a type of information.
>
> If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is
> possible in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of
> binary choices: either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the
> diagonal direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will be
> meaningfully informed by the sequence of the transmitter's choices.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>Thoughts?<<
there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity) with 
quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them then 
they are not on solid ground.
>From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood so 
>false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly written 
>by his wife.




On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV  wrote: 
 
 
 Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine 
Hossenfelderhttps://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo

I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an FLT 
message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e. unmeasured 
state is also a type of information. 
If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is possible 
in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of binary choices: 
either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the diagonal direction at 
a given time. What the receiver detects will be meaningfully informed by the 
sequence of the transmitter's choices. 

Thoughts?
Harry