----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], email@example.com
Subject: Re: Plaga
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:37:54 -0400
> aet.radal ssg wrote:
> > From the initial page from the included link to the archive: "I'm
> > no physicist so I don't know for sure that >these implications
> > would
> > follow, but I am very doubtful that interworld communication is consistent
> > with the basics of quantum mechanics. The fact that this paper has not
> > been published in peer reviewed journals in 7 years indicates that it
> > probably doesn't work."
> > Back when I wasn't long in the field of video production I was
> > well aware of the insistance and belief of >TV engineers that a
> > single tube industrial color video camera was not broadcast
> > quality. Working in >cable, where they were used for cablecast, I
> > had plenty of opportunity to look at picture quality, etc. and
> > >came to the conclusion that it shouldn't be a problem. 2 years
> > later I got the chance to prove it when a >local news station
> > sent a crew out to cover something that I was shooting. In the
> > end I gave them >the editied sequence I had shot (now down two
> > generations), and they took it and edited it into their >story,
> > which would have taken it down a third. Then they broadcasted it
> > over the air. I taped it off-air and >the results were conclusive
> > - I was right, all the nay-sayer engineers were wrong. A $40,000
> > Ikegami >vs a $1,500 Panasonic and it was a tie except for one
> > slight red bleed from a costume due to the >Saticon tube bias
> > toward red in the camera I used, which could have been color
> > corrected with a time >base corrector, but whoever dubbed the
> > tape left the red level a little too hot.
> > My point being that that was the first in a long line of "you
> > can'ts" that I've faced which I eventually >proved, "you can".
> > Thus I have a dim view of such positions when they aren't backed
> > up with >experiments that prove so *conclusively*. As long as the
> > possibility exists, I keep an open mind. >Besides, if unbriddled
> > skepticism was right all the time, we wouldn't be using
> > computers, flying, or >even have phones of any kind, just to name
> > a few things.
> There is a fundamental difference between claims that we can never
> do something because the engineering problems are too great, and
> claims that we can never do something because the laws of physics
> themselves say it's impossible.
I'm going to take that as an indication that you don't understand the inherent implications of what I was talking about. It does have to do with "the laws of physics" because the engineers were that there was a specific physical reason as to why the right number of electrons weren't going to be able to be produced in order to create a broadcast quality picture. Physics deals with the behavior of electrons which is key to video technology and applications. When the engineers said that a type of camera wasn't broadcast quality they were saying that the laws of physics, which determine what EM signals do and how they behave when transmitted at various frequnecies, etc., wouldn't allow that transmitted signal from that one tube camera source to be received at the proper FCC level. To better understand how these ancient devices used to work you check out http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/IMAGE_ORTHICON.html and http://members.chello.nl/h.dijkstra19/page4.html .
So, did I break the laws of physics? No. I just accomplished a work around because the engineers' model was too narrow. I didn't re-engineer the camera and not even the manufacturer claimed it was a broadcast quality device. I looked at the camera output and determined that the physical model that the engineers and yes, the entire freaking video camera and broadcast industry was using, was *wrong*. Their model of physics for the behavior of the signals produced by that camera was wrong. And I proved it.
Likewise, I believe that the model of QM that a lot of people use is too narrow. There are physicists who won't even allow for MWI despite that others do. I allow for MWI that allows for contact because I believe that, like those engineers, those who insist that contact between worlds is impossible have a model that's too narrow and are missing something.
>For example, I've heard people say
> things like "I'm sure we'll eventually break the light-speed
> barrier, after all, once people thought it was impossible that we'd
> ever break the sound barrier but they've been proved wrong". But
> the two are not really comparable, because no one ever thought the
> laws of physics said breaking the sound barrier was impossible,
> they just thought the technical challenges to doing so would be too
> difficult, whereas the light-speed barrier is built into the basic
> structure of relativity (although there are possible loopholes in
> general relativity like wormholes, where you get to distant
> destinations quickly without ever *locally* exceeding the speed of
Yeah, and there's work being done on how to get around that already, too. I could invoke EPR - Einstein said that it couldn't be done, it would violate the laws of physics. It was done.
> Similarly, when Hal Finney suggests he thinks interworld
> communication is impossible, I think he's suggesting that it would
> violate basic principles of QM, not that it's too big of a
> technical challenge.
The principles of QM can be misunderstood and proven otherwise or expanded, like many other things have in the past.
>I also saw this suggested in the book
> "Schrodinger's Rabbits" by Colin Bruce, a pop science book about
> the MWI (p. 137):
> "If only we could do a clear and unambiguous
> communication-between-worlds experiment. Then there would be no
> room for argument about the reality of many-worlds. Unfortunately,
> the laws of physics do not seem to allow such a thing.
Such comments only prevent people from investigating if there are other possibilities of doing it. Such comments come from people that are unimaginative and I am deeply nonplussed by their ilk.
> "This is frustrating because two potentially useful methods of
> harnessing the power of many-worlds, which we will look at in
> detail shortly, can be described in terms of sharing resources
> between worlds, or even sharing information between worlds. For
> example, a loose way of describing the operation of a quantum
> computer is as follows: As worlds start to diverge, hundreds of
> billions of different copies of the computer come into existence.
> Each of these computer copies can work on a different calculation.
> The shared results of their labors, however, can be made available
> to all the diverging worlds created when the bubble of Hilbert
> space describing the computer is systematically collapsed by
> measurement at the end of the calculation.
These types of examples of communication between worlds are overly complicated because they're putting the cart before the horse and are based on computers. Don't you think a method of communicating between worlds based on contact with the humans that are supposed to operating those computers, should be done first? When you approach from that angle, let's just try one with a person instead of trying to connect with a BILLION worlds, then it becomes a different story.
> "This makes it sound as if Hilbert space might possibly be used as
> a kind of mailbox for communicating between worlds. Unfortunately,
> the mathematics that describes Hilbert space rules this out because
> it implies that everything that goes on in Hilbert space is
> reversible. As soon as you try to take information out of Hilbert
> space, that reversibility is destroyed.
Which doesn't bother me at all, since I wouldn't have tried to use Hilbert space as a quantum mail drop.
>Such acts of measurement,
> by definition, cause decoherence. You can preserve multiworld
> access to a bubble of Hilbert space only by allowing it to evolve
> undisturbed. It reminds me of C.S. Lewis's "Wood Between the
> Worlds" described in the Magician's Nephew. Any Hilbert space
> accessible from more than one world line must be a timeless place,
> in which we can leave no permanent mark."
> If this is correct (and I don't understand this stuff well enough
> to say for sure it is), then inter-world communication would only
> be possible if it turned out that the existing principles of QM
> were wrong, and that they ended up being modified by some future
> theory (quantum gravity, perhaps) in a way that removes these
> fundamental obstacles.
You're basing that opinion on a methodolgy that I wouldn't use because it's bass-akwards to begin with.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com