A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Scientists are testing instant interaction of photons at a distance, it's called quantum teleportation, the problem is the particles must be entangled for it to work, which means they must have physically interacted at some point of their existence before moving apart/separating. This is the cutting edge of science here, the best and brightest of the best and brightest work on this kind of stuff.

Even so one of the key points is that the photons in question must be in contact and then move apart by traveling at c. What is being teleported is information, not physical matter or energy, it is the quantum state of the one photon that is being detected in the other photon, but the photons did not teleoprt to the other location.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Quantum teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary
Assume that Alice and Bob share an entangled qubit ab. That is, Alice has one half, a, and Bob has the other half, b. Let c denote the qubit Alice wishes to transmit to Bob.
Alice applies a unitary operation on the qubits ac and measures the result to obtain two classical bits. In this process, the two qubits are destroyed. Bob's qubit, b, now contains information about c; however, the information is somewhat randomized. More specifically, Bob's qubit b is in one of four states uniformly chosen at random and Bob cannot obtain any information about c from his qubit.
Alice provides her two measured classical bits, which indicate which of the four states Bob possesses. Bob applies a unitary transformation which depends on the classical bits he obtains from Alice, transforming his qubit into an identical re-creation of the qubit c.

So Bob can receive information but it is useless till he receives (via. conventional communication) additional information about the quantum information he received instantly. Just how useless is that, well maybe not completely useless? But technically interesting.

[naturalist.atheist]

These notions of "teleportation" often used when talking about quantum entanglement rely on the assumption that at the sub-atomic level, particles are characterized by a relatively small number of measurements. So in the case of a photon (light) that would be polarization, phase and frequency. Just three properties. So two photons that had equal values for these three measurements would be considered to be identical (at least until we learn how to read the serial numbers ).

[thedoc]

So the scientists can teleport informatin across a room, or from one building to another, but then need to call on the phone to verify that it worked and what they transmitted.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A summary
Assume that Alice and Bob share an entangled qubit ab. That is, Alice has one half, a, and Bob has the other half, b. Let c denote the qubit Alice wishes to transmit to Bob.
Alice applies a unitary operation on the qubits ac and measures the result to obtain two classical bits. In this process, the two qubits are destroyed. Bob's qubit, b, now contains information about c; however, the information is somewhat randomized. More specifically, Bob's qubit b is in one of four states uniformly chosen at random and Bob cannot obtain any information about c from his qubit.
Alice provides her two measured classical bits, which indicate which of the four states Bob possesses. Bob applies a unitary transformation which depends on the classical bits he obtains from Alice, transforming his qubit into an identical re-creation of the qubit c.

So Bob can receive information but it is useless till he receives (via. conventional communication) additional information about the quantum information he received instantly. Just how useless is that, well maybe not completely useless? But technically interesting.

This is right. The "spooky action at a distance" of QM that Einstein deplored cannot be exploited to send actual information (another disproof of real-time seeing).

The bits about QM that are so weird are spooky action at a distance, indeterminism, and nonrealism. All of this weirdness vanishes if you accept the many worlds interpretation of QM, however. Many Worlds is a fully realistic, local and deterministic theory of reality, just as Einstein demanded a theory should be.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize now that people don't want real time vision to be true which, I believe, has been the cause of such extreme emotional reactions.

As has been explained to you before, plenty of people -- including pretty-much the entire astronomical community -- would practically kill for the ability to see in "real time."


The problem is that every single experiment and observation conclusively demonstrates that we don't.

[davidm]

The other thing that many worlds solves is wave function collapse. The collapse of the wave function is at the heart of all the weirdness of QM, and is itself utterly mysterious and without scientific explanation since it seems to imply that human consciousness collapses the wave function, a decidedly philosophically idealist and ontologically nihilist view of reality. Under many worlds, there is no wave function collapse, and the solution to the other conundrums of QM falls neatly into place.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has been explained to you before, plenty of people -- including pretty-much the entire astronomical community -- would practically kill for the ability to see in "real time."


The problem is that every single experiment and observation conclusively demonstrates that we don't.

Yeah, it's weird, isn't it? Why would peacegirl think that people don't want real-time seeing to be true? I mean, why would we care? Is it because we all had fathers who wrote books saying that real time seeing is false, and we want it to be false because our fathers said so?

But then again, I can think of a very good reason why we all want real time seeing to be false, and it's been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, though peacegirl's little bubble-gum brain no doubt failed to register it. If real-time seeing were true, the entire night sky would be white, the average surface temp of the earth would be about 10,000 degree F, and we'd all be dead.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

The other thing that many worlds solves is wave function collapse. The collapse of the wave function is at the heart of all the weirdness of QM, and is itself utterly mysterious and without scientific explanation since it seems to imply that human consciousness collapses the wave function, a decidedly philosophically idealist and ontologically nihilist view of reality. Under many worlds, there is no wave function collapse, and the solution to the other conundrums of QM falls neatly into place.

I think Peacegirl should (P)-explain the (P)-wave function collapse, as that would probably clinch it for (P)-real time seeing. And she should throw in explaining (P)-many worlds while she's at it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yeah, it's weird, isn't it? Why would peacegirl think that people don't want real-time seeing to be true? I mean, why would we care? Is it because we all had fathers who wrote books saying that real time seeing is false, and we want it to be false because our fathers said so?

But then again, I can think of a very good reason why we all want real time seeing to be false, and it's been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, though peacegirl's little bubble-gum brain no doubt failed to register it. If real-time seeing were true, the entire night sky would be white, the average surface temp of the earth would be about 10,000 degree F, and we'd all be dead.

No, then we would be intelligent cinders and we would live inside a volcano not on the side.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So the scientists can teleport informatin across a room, or from one building to another, but then need to call on the phone to verify that it worked and what they transmitted.

If that was the only goal then it hardly sounds worth it. The main benefit is that it is a secure link. If anyone tries to listen in all they end up doing is break the link.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If that was the only goal then it hardly sounds worth it. The main benefit is that it is a secure link. If anyone tries to listen in all they end up doing is break the link.

What would really be useful is to be able to instantly transmit information across long distances, say from one star to another. The trick would be to trap entangled photons in a device that could be carried in a long distance space vehicle. The other part is to be able to send and then retrieve the data, but this would then violate relativity.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What would really be useful is to be able to instantly transmit information across long distances, say from one star to another. The trick would be to trap entangled photons in a device that could be carried in a long distance space vehicle. The other part is to be able to send and then retrieve the data, but this would then violate relativity.

Once you measure one side the entanglement is ended. So you have to send a new entangled photon by star ship to send the next bit. So the net result is less than the speed of light transmission.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am actually not interested in hearing any more results that would prove Lessans wrong, not because I'm in denial, but because the test to prove him wrong, is inaccurate. When you talk about mirrors, do you actually think this proves Lessans wrong when I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists? You really should be laughing at yourself Angakuk for spreading your wings in pride when you have nothing to be proud about.

I didn't say anything about trying to prove Lessans wrong. I described a simple experiment that you can do at home. The purpose of the experiment is to see whether or not non-absorbed light is reflected by an object. The object, in this instance, being a mirror.

Did you do the experiment? If you did, what were the results and how do you explain those results? If you didn't try it, why didn't you?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Once you measure one side the entanglement is ended. So you have to send a new entangled photon by star ship to send the next bit. So the net result is less than the speed of light transmission.

No the device would need to have a multitude of chambers, one for each message, but the limit would be a finite number of messages could be transmitted. Be careful what you send and don't get chatty.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am actually not interested in hearing any more results that would prove Lessans wrong, because the test to prove him wrong, is inaccurate.

That is a straight forward statement of Peacegirls position on emperical evidence.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by A:hemorrhoid

Did you do the experiment? If you did, what were the results and how do you explain those results? If you didn't try it, why didn't you?

Damn, the thread started to get interesting, and then someone had to drag Peacegirl back into it. I'm not one to name names but you know who you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has been explained to you before, plenty of people -- including pretty-much the entire astronomical community -- would practically kill for the ability to see in "real time."


The problem is that every single experiment and observation conclusively demonstrates that we don't.

Really? I hope so because that's how we see. Spacemonkey is wrong in his analysis, pure and simple.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I didn't say anything about trying to prove Lessans wrong. I described a simple experiment that you can do at home. The purpose of the experiment is to see whether or not non-absorbed light is reflected by an object. The object, in this instance, being a mirror.

Did you do the experiment? If you did, what were the results and how do you explain those results? If you didn't try it, why didn't you?

I don't have to do an experiment because I know what it will show. If an object is in the room when I look in a mirror the non-absorbed light will be reflected, but I will see the image in the mirror in real time. Just because light reflects off of a mirror doesn't negate the efferent model. Again, you're failing to see that what we are viewing in the mirror is a "mirror image" of the actual object that is in the room. Do you think the light would bring us the image if the object was no longer in the room? That's what science is actually stating when they say an event doesn't have to be present for the light to bring us the image, as if to say that light alone is the cause, not a condition, of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think you do, because you keep avoiding the direct questions and mentioning unrelated or irrelevant points.

1. Photons must be on the surface of the camera film for a photographic image to be created.

2. If the photograph is of a red object, the photons absorbed by the camera film must be red.
If the photograph is of a blue object, the photons absorbed by the camera film must be blue.

In efferent vision, what is the source of the photons that are located at the surface of the camera film, and how is the wavelength determined at the location of the camera film, and how did those photons of that wavelength come to be located at the surface of the camera film?

I already answered this. You are not thinking in terms of film to object. You are thinking in terms of object to film. It's the same thing as the retina being able to get a mirror image of the object, which does not require the light to travel to Earth. I can see that you're having a difficult time understanding this, but it doesn't make efferent vision any less true because of this confusion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Leave it at you having no model and not knowing that Lessans' ideas are plausible or even possible? Okay.

Of course you did. You've been through it all several times before. You knew exactly what to expect.

You are the only one with personal reasons for your beliefs about vision. The rest of us are appealing only to evidence and reason.

What are you going to discuss next, now that you are refusing to answer questions on either of his two non-discoveries?

Nothing at all. I'm not going to share the most important chapter when you all have your noses up in the air. You're all way too big for your britches; that's the problem. You won't even take time to listen to his reasoning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody but you thinks that whether dogs can recognize human faces has anything to do with the direction we see.

But it actually does if you think about it. There is a reason why the eyes are not as important to dogs as they are to people, and why dog's other senses are. This has everything to do with language.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Animal behaviorists are testing the issue, because it is interesting in and of itself from a cognitive standpoint, but none of those studies have anything to do with optics.

It absolutely does. Like I have said throughout this thread, why would a dog respond to all of his other senses but not to an image that, according to scientists, go straight into the dog's eyes and brain? Why would the dog not respond to seeing his owner if his other senses were out of commission? Why would the visual part of his brain respond differently than the auditory part of his brain, or the olfactory part of his brain which work independently of his other senses? You're just poohing poohing Lessans' observations because you don't think he was an expert. But the truth is dogs cannot recognize their owners from a picture because nothing is going into the brain that allows this recognition to occur. Obviously, there is something cognitively different which has to do with language, but this doesn't change the fact that vision works differently than the other senses.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are also testing baby vision on a pretty ongoing basis, but their findings all refute Lessans.

A newborn's eyes can appear that they are focused at a close range due to the fact that the eyes come together at that focal point, but it does not mean they actually see like we do.

[LadyShea]

You hold idiosyncratic faith based beliefs ...nobody else sees those associations or makes those leaps of logic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but not to an image that, according to scientists, go straight into the dog's eyes and brain?

Nobody anywhere, especially scientists, thinks "images go straight into the eyes and brain". This has been explained to you a million times. It is a strawman argument. You cannot let go of your false assumptions because your faith won't allow it, they are articles of faith for you

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this. You are not thinking in terms of film to object. You are thinking in terms of object to film. It's the same thing as the retina being able to get a mirror image of the object, which does not require the light to travel to Earth. I can see that you're having a difficult time understanding this, but it doesn't make efferent vision any less true because of this confusion.

I am thinking in terms of the requirements of photography which is film and light. You avoid answering questions about this at all costs because you have no possible, let alone plausible mechanism.

That's because you believe all of this on faith.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing at all. I'm not going to share the most important chapter when you all have your noses up in the air. You're all way too big for your britches; that's the problem. You won't even take time to listen to his reasoning.

Is this a pitch to buy the audio book?