Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't have serial numbers.
When a narrow radiation line is passed through glass, the line doesn't seem to get any wider. This means that the new photon must have exactly the same energy as the old one. When a tight laser beam is passed through glass it comes out as a tight beam. This means that the exact energy and direction of the photon must be remembered (stored) at the location of the electron for a brief time.
That's a lot of stored bits of information. I've often wondered if Shannon has any trouble with storing it.
I wouldn't call them gibberish. They are merely wrong. The idea that the electrons are trapped in a one dimensional loop and that the length of this loop changes size as the energy changes is an ok way to think about some of the quantum effects. It really bombs out on other questions.
Of course the sentence was gibberish. The syntax itself was meaningless. Maybe what was meant was supposed to make sense, but photons are objects that move along a tract (path). The path isn't the object. Such a statement is nonsensical.
This is not what the original sentence said. Your sentence actually makes grammatical sense, whether or not it is a true statement is another matter.
I don't know about any of the details you allude to here, but all energy
*has* to be fundamentally an object in motion. All we have in the 3 universes are objects, that move. That's you lot. Period.
For example, if mass can be "turned" to energy (i.e. motion of objects) mass must consist of motion of internal objects.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
formatting link
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
The intent of my experiment was not you directly replace yours. The intent was to point out the basic underlying problem with the logic you are using to design your experiment.
[...]
"when we look at scope" we can substitute, determine the state of the oscilloscope's display at some later time.
The word "seems" is very important here. You've looked at the state of the scope's display and have seen something that appears to indicate FTL. It also could be the partially fed cat in our story and only have taken on that appearance when you checked its state. If it is the partially fed cat, there is no information there until you check the state.
No, the partially fed cat version doesn't require FTL to get the scope to display what you've seen so that theory is still standing.
If the scope is the "partially fed cat" it is in a mixed quantum state until you check it. That is, the issue of what is on the display is not decided until the state is determined by you checking it.
Under theory (B) of quantum physics:
When you check it, from your point of view, the issue of what is on the display is now a decided matter. From the point of view of some outside observer, now both you and the scope are now in the partially fed cat state until you tell that observer what you saw. This effect radiates outward through each level of observer.
This is why you will firmly believe the FTL has happened, but when you try to apply it to two way communications it will quit working.
No, remember this is about *proving* FTL. I've owned cats so I now a lot about quantum physics just from observation.
All I really care about is that it be in a particular state when I check it. That is, I want to see that 2µs delay time after time after time...
Kinda like if FedEX were to claim that they could deliver a package to my door three seconds after they picked it up, no matter where they picked it up from. I couldn't care less about what happens between when they pick it up and deliver it, that's their secret. All I want is to see the package there when they said it would be there.
---
--- Again, as long as the display is displaying what I want it to be displaying when I check it, there is no issue because I don't care what's happening when I'm not checking.
---
--- Well, of course if I make my oservation and then relay that information to another observer it's going to take longer than if the second observer was viewing the scope at the same time I was. It would also take longer for the information to get to the second observer if he was farther downstream from the source than I was. That's no different from how things are now, but what _is_ different is the new carrier we're talking about, with differences in propagation velocites between it and EM perhaps analogous to the difference in propagation velocities between sound and RF through air.
Taking the analogy one step farther and considering that for the mechanical transmission and reception of sound you need (say) a larynx and an ear, for the transmission and reception of RF a radio transmitter and receiver, and for the transmission and reception of FTL an FTL transmitter and receiver, (which is no doubt looked upon with as much disdain by some of us, now, as radio once was) all that's needed now is the TX/RX pair. It seems like we might be able to do it with entangled photons, but so far that way seems to be tantalizingly just out of reach, so who knows?
---
--- Well, the proof will be in the pudding, but nobody _owns_ cats, they merely allow you to take care of them. :-)
You may want to see that, but that doesn't prove FTL communications.
Lets imagine a case where the scope shows a 2uS difference 1/2 an hour after the pulse was generated 1 foot away. No information got to the scope's display at an FTL speed.
But how would you prove that the time from pick up to delivery was really
3 seconds? People can claim lots of things. Unless you have some way to determine the pick up time. You don't even know that you are in fact looking at the same package, let alone that it was picked up when claimed.
[...]
It doesn't merely take longer for the second observer. As far as he's concerned, you don't even know the answer until you tell him. If you try to send a reply before you tell him, from his point of view you can only send a random reply.
Its fairly obvious that it would have to be well over 1000 feet. C being about 1 foot per nS.
I think you now see way I changed the experiment to involve two times from some starting time. It makes the problem easier to deal with.
You have a bit of a problem with the message from Digi-key however. You can't prove that the time that was indicated was the real time of the pick up. You really need to be at both ends of the experiment at the same time, but you need to have the ends, in our case, 1000 feet apart.
If the FTL communications worked both ways, you could set up some circuit that sends, perhaps, 3 times the number it receives. This circuit could be at the far end of the pair of paths and then you could know for sure what happened at both ends. By making it perform some operation on the signal, you can rule out cross talk.
Yes but consider the time between when you find out and when you tell him. In classical physics, you know the answer during that time. Under QM theory (B) you don't know the answer during that time.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.