The motivated Assupmtion

[BrunosStar]

And even if it does, (as Martin pointed out), you cannot signal anything at faster than light speed. For any meaningful information to be passed, the receiver must have the results of a measurement made by the sender.

Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver, because the particles are always in opposite states of one another.

Bruno

 

[Walter Wayne]

Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver.

Bruno

The magnetic field travels at the speed of light. It is transmitted via photons.

Walt

 

[BrunosStar]

By 'all the others', I assume you mean physicists? This is pretty elementary stuff.

Physicists trying to sell books! It's time to grow up Martinm...there is no such thing as backward time travel; relativity does not predict it. I've explained how time dilation works. I can't any simpler than that. You can draw all the diagrams you want; you just call the spatial configuration space-time and then think that time is some how integrated with space...No! Time is cause and effect, not space, not space-time, space is not a cause or an effect; no reactions no time. It's that simple.

Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

The magnetic field travels at the speed of light. It is transmitted via photons.Walt

Did you not get it? At the recieving end! The particle is affected FTL. So as soon as the spin state is detected at the reciever, based on the changing magentic field, we know what the senders state was.

Bruno

 

[Jethro]

there is no such thing as backward time travel; relativity does not predict it.

You are right, there is no such thing as backwards time travel, but there is also no such thing as travel or communication at faster than the speed of light. If one of these things existed, then relativity states that the other also exists.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum. Or why Martinm and RichardR state that you require information from the sender.

Try google. You'll find a mess of scientific papers mixed in with remote viewing and the like. If you read the scientific pages, you will understand that the measurement of the sender is done to determine "if" information was passed.

Walt

 

[BrunosStar]

You are right, there is no such thing as backwards time travel, but there is also no such thing as travel or communication at faster than the speed of light. If one of these things existed, then relativity states that the other also exists.

How entanglement work's is not known, but using a propagating electromagnetic wave runs into coherence problems. The fact that you can know what both particle states are by just measuring one is information. That relationship between two particles can be used to communicate. The ability to use EPR as a communications system requires that one can store a particle indefinitely, and measure the particle without destroying it or loosing it.


And no relativity does not state that FTL realizes in backward time travel, that is your misunderstanding. Once more, time dilation is due to the increased distance between any two points due to "curved space" or motion. In FTL the distance between two points would only get larger than it already could be at the speed of light. So time just drops to zero, FTL doesn't make time go backward. It's simple trigonometry, I don’t see why so many people have such a hard time understanding time dilation!


Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum. Or why Martinm and RichardR state that you require information from the sender.
Walt

Using a technique that uses qu bit operations on the sender's particle, would not require the sender to send any information to the receiver classically. The sending particle can change states based on qu bit operations performed on it. The receiver would sense any change imparted to the sending particle; since each particle is always in the opposite state of the other.

Bruno

 

[fishbob]

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions.

Absolutely false. And therefore, the arguments that follow from this statement are also absolutely false. ( Sorry, I was a little late getting here.)

 

[BrunosStar]

Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum.
Walt

The no cloning issue is not what’s happening in EPR! The quantum states are not cloned; this is the paradox of EPR. Entangling particles is not cloning quantum states. The two particles affect each other, and affect each other in a manner that always realizes in the exact opposite state of the other. Prior to measurement neither particle has a defined state. Only when the particles are measured is the state defined. So entangle communications is not cloning quantum states.

Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

Absolutely false. And therefore, the arguments that follow from this statement are also absolutely false. ( Sorry, I was a little late getting here.)

Not so, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would say other wise.

Bruno

 

[DrChinese]

First, the ET site referenced is ridiculous. Just a bunch of speculation, doctored photos and jumbled ideas. (What does quantum entanglement have to do with Drake's Equation? The site actually claims faster than light communication has been demonstrated by scientists.)

Second, that actually makes it a good proving ground for this thread. Our "motivated assumption" being how to tell something which is ridiculous from something which is not.

Third, all theories are NOT created equal. And this is the key point. The theory about UFOs is completely ad hoc. Most of all, it has no utility. Utility is an important component of a theory. And it is a way to compare theories. (For example, if the theory had utility, it would become the basis for new types of aircraft.)

The underpinning of the UFO article is that there is a new and previously unknown science at work. I have no problem with that IF and WHEN it is ever discovered and demonstrated to the public. Such is not the case here. We may as well be discussing (since it is St. Patrick's Day) leprechauns.

A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.

 

[RichardR]

Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver, because the particles are always in opposite states of one another.

So what message could be sent? Can you give us an example?

 

[BrunosStar]

So what message could be sent? Can you give us an example?

A one or zero.

Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

What does quantum entanglement have to do with Drake's Equation?

The site does not correlate the two. How you managed to come to that conclusion is suspicious.

A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Like the theory of backward time travel, cone diagrams depicting the future and the past! LOL

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.



Bruno

 

[FutileJester]

[DrChinese]
A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Like the theory of backward time travel, cone diagrams depicting the future and the past! LOL

Why are these statements of faith? Because you find them inconvenient? I say the linked web site is a statement of faith because there are no data, no clear hypotheses, no testable predictions. The things you laugh at have all of these in plenty. They are concrete ideas that have survived the rigors of replication and peer review because they continue to make predictions more accurately than the alternatives. For me to discard the work of decades of science, I'll need something a bit more persuasive than you walking in and lauging knowingly.

Do you honestly think that there is no difference at all between a theory which has been carefully tested and challenged and reviewed and replicated, and a 'theory' based on someone thinking about things?

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.

It does not leave us with that conclusion at all. It does tell us that provability is a weaker concept than truth. Tell me, if Godel reached the conclusion that 'it's all based on faith', why did he continue to do mathematics? Why didn't math end right there as undecidable nonsense? If Godel did not, in fact, reach this conclusion from his theorem (which in fact he did not), then I have to ask why you are willing to use Godel's theorem to support your conclusion, but are not willing to accept Godel's own conclusion?

You've done this with Sagan too. Any argument from authority is weak, but to use an authority to support a position that the authority themself would not support is particularly weak.

 

[BrunosStar]

Why are these statements of faith? Because you find them inconvenient? I say the linked web site is a statement of faith because there are no data, no clear hypotheses, no testable predictions. The things you laugh at have all of these in plenty. They are concrete ideas that have survived the rigors of replication and peer review because they continue to make predictions more accurately than the alternatives. For me to discard the work of decades of science, I'll need something a bit more persuasive than you walking in and lauging knowingly.

Do you honestly think that there is no difference at all between a theory which has been carefully tested and challenged and reviewed and replicated, and a 'theory' based on someone thinking about things?

How many times do I have to go through the mechanics of time dilation? Get a grip man; you're doing what the religious do, acting on faith! Relativity does not predict backward time travel, Einstein never said it was possible. You meld the good science that has proven relativity as Einstein defined it, with the misinterpretations of unemployed physicists, that have turned Einstein's theory into a whore for the gullible and movie producers. And for the one thousandth time...time is cause and effect, not space, not space time! It is not a line or a path, it is not what allows events to happen, but is the actual event itself, cause and effect…. Why it’s entropic, get it?


Bruno

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

BrunoStar,

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.

I think you are misinterpreting the connotations that Goedel's incompleteness theorem has on the scientific method.

First of all, the incompleteness theorem has nothing to do with the fact that all logical systems must be based on assumptions which are not provable within the system. That is a fundamental rule of logic. My previous post (which you did not respond to) addresses why this does not constitute "taking it on faith". I'll repeat the important point here.

Even the fundamental principles of science are based on solid supporting evidence. Sure, they cannot be logically proven to be valid. No statement about reality can be logically proven to be true. All that means is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge.

The axioms of science cannot be logically proven. Nothing about reality can be logically proven. But like any scientific theory, those axioms are not taken on faith. They are accepted only because they have substantial reliable supporting evidence.

That said, what Goedel's incompleteness theorem tells us is that it is possible to construct statements within a formal logical framework, whose truth value cannot be derived from the axioms of that framework. An example is the question of whether there are infinite cardinalities between aleph-null (the cardinality of the set of natural numbers), and c (the cardinality of the set of real numbers). The answer to this question cannot be derived from the axioms of arithmetic.

What this means for science is that no matter how much we know, there will always be we can ask whose answers cannot be logically derived from what we already know. I fail to see how this has anything to do with faith. In fact, to take an answer to any of those questions on faith, would be very unscientific. There are many questions which can be asked about the physical World, whose answers cannot be logically derived from what we already know. That is one of the reasons why we do scientific research. It would, of course, be nonsensical to simply pick a possible answer, and then accept it on faith, rather than attempting to empirically verify it.

Dr. Stupid

 

[BrunosStar]

It would, of course, be nonsensical to simply pick a possible answer, and then accept it on faith, rather than attempting to empirically verify it.
Dr. Stupid

I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site. If the site claimed something ordinary like being barked at by dog, there wouldn't be any problem. So if something really usual were to happen to some one, despite that they can describe it to you, right down to the science that was used, you'd find it hard to believe. But despite your faith that it didn't happen, because that's all you have to rely on, since you have no more evidence of what happened to the individual than the individual has, we can not prove one way or another as to what actually happened.


Bruno

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

BrunoStar,

I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site.

I don't believe any claim without reliable evidence. That doesn't mean that without reliable evidence, I automatically believe the claim is false.

If the site claimed something ordinary like being barked at by dog, there wouldn't be any problem.

How do you mean? If you tell me you barked at by a dog yesterday, I am not going to claim that you are lying, but neither am I going to automatically reject the possibility that you are. As always, I will make a probabilistic assessment based on the available evidence.

So if something really usual were to happen to some one, despite that they can describe it to you, right down to the science that was used, you'd find it hard to believe.

I would assign a low probability to it.

But despite your faith that it didn't happen, because that's all you have to rely on, since you have no more evidence of what happened to the individual than the individual has, we can not prove one way or another as to what actually happened.

I have no faith that it did not happen. That would be irrational. If the evidence indicates that it is very likely that it happened, then I will believe it happened. If the evidence indicates that it is very unlikely that it happened, then I will believe that it did not. If the evidence is not overwhelmingly pointing towards one or the other, then I simply say that I do not know.

Faith never enters into it. Faith is irrational.

Dr. Stupid