UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jun > Jun 19

Re: E.S.A. Successfully Tests Real SETI Detector -

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:37:19 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:15:05 -0400
Subject: Re: E.S.A. Successfully Tests Real SETI Detector -


>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:45:09 +0100
>Subject: Re: E.S.A. Successfully Tests Real SETI Detector

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:25:14 +0100
>>Subject: Re: E.S.A. Successfully Tests Real SETI Detector

><snip>

>>Given that entanglement is probably the dominant type of
>>coupling in all physical systems, this fact is almost obvious.
>>It is implied in the very fact that the world around you is not
>>a coherent superposition of quantum states, but a classical
>>world of decohered states within a relativistic spacetime
>>structure. In other words, nature is shot through with EPR-type
>>entanglements, and her complete causal structure evidently
>>depends somehow on the fact that they are there, but she
>>doesn't use them for getting classical information from place
>>to place. And neither can we.

><snip>

>Martin,

>Hope you'll forgive me snipping the opinion stuff - and have to
>admit that a hundred years ago you could have made that
>statement without fear of contradiction, in fact only one or
>two people in the world might have understood it.

>Then, well into the century Einstein made a last attempt to
>'logically' disbar the physical existence of a 'quantum field' -
>and was proved wrong by repeated experiments, the best known
>being by Alain Aspect. Bell's earlier truly logical analysis of
>the possible results, often called his "Inequality" is still
>too scary for many 'scientists' to truly admit into their
>thinking.

Ray

You are so confused I'm afraid it really is a joke. I won't
bother even trying to untangle the misconceptions here. Let me
just say I understand that anything contrary to your highly
personal worldview is "opinion stuff", and I hardly expect you
to listen to me. That is why I referred you in my original post
to the presentation by Alain Aspect himself, which you
prominently link on your webite citing it as authority that
entanglement offers instantaneous FTL communication.

Try actually reading it - never mind the math and troublesome
logic, just go straight to the end where he very explicitly
makes the disclaimer (necessary in every such article, it seems,
for the reason that this misunderstanding is so easy to fall
into) that entanglement does_not_ make instantaneous FTL
communication possible. Repeat, _not_. OK?

You say "f.t.l. transfer of information between 'entangled'
particles... has been confirmed in the laboratory" and
reference as your authority:

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/aspect1/oh/40.html

where we read:

"We may have nonlocality, but it does not allow faster than
light signalling!"

"Nonlocality cannot be used for practical telegraphy"

"No faster than light signalling with EPR entangled pairs"

"Arthur changes the setting of a polarizer I from a to a': can
Beatrice instantaneously observe a change on measurements at II?
To measure P++(a,b) Beatrice must compare her results to the
results at I: the transmission of these results... is done on a
classical channel, not faster than light."

Or, since I've seen you cite Roger Penrose with approbation
before now and you like quotes, how about this one:

"... the non-local 'influences' that arise in EPR-type
experiments are not such that they can be used to send
messages... A detailed demonstration that [they] cannot be used
to signal messages has been carried out by Girardi, Rimini and
Weber 1980. It is of no use to be told that a photon is
polarized ... until one is informed _which_ of the two
alternatives it actually is... [This] knowledge arrives more
slowly, via an ordinary an ordinary signal... ." (Emperor's New
Mind, p.370)

Go to any reputable physics text anywhere and you'll get the
same "opinion stuff". Of course the only opinion stuff you are
interested in is stuff that you can convince yourself supports
your own opinions.

>And now we know that nature not only uses the quantum field but
>allows individual beings to use it for their own purposes.

Oh dear. I'll regret this, but...

Of course everything in nature "uses the quantum field". The
quantum field is one representation of physics' description of
how nature works, and that description includes nonlocal
entanglement of coupled states as well as a locality condition
on the spacetime connections between them. I appreciate that you
don't understand this and it seems contradictory to you, but
there it is. I can only recommend that you read more
assiduously.

>Quote #1

>"Plants, it turns out, rely on a similar quantum function to
>convert sunlight into chemical energy at near-perfect
>efficiency.
>As energy passes between molecules involved in photosynthesis,
>a newly observed 'wavelike characteristic' allows the energy to
>'simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and
>choose the most efficient one.'

>If scientists figure out how to emulate the process, they might
>be able to artificially replicate photosynthesis... ushering
>in, perhaps, a world of leafy green solar power."

>http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/04/quantum_photosy.html

All energy exchange processes in nature, without exception, are
quantum mechanical processes (whatever that may turn out to
really mean next century). This has nothing whatsoever to do
with faster-than-light signalling.

>Quote #2

>"There is some research to support the view that bees are
>sensitive to effects that occur only on a quantum-mechanical
>scale. One study exposed bees to short bursts of a high-
>intensity magnetic field and concluded that the bees' response
>could be better explained as a sensitivity to an effect known
>as nuclear magnetic resonance, or nmr, an acronym commonly
>associated with a medical imaging technique. nmr occurs when an
>electromagnetic wave impinges on the nuclei of atoms and flips
>their orientation. nmr is considered a quantum mechanical
>effect because it takes place only if each atom absorbs a
>particular size packet, or quantum, of electromagnetic energy."

NMR is a quantum mechanical process. So is the photon
absorption occurring in your retina as you read this. Neither has
anything whatsoever to do with faster-than-light signalling.

>The full report, on 'quantum flag manifold mapping' by bees, is
>at a long URL in this text file:

>http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/beesqm1.txt

>Note: I suspect that many other evolved social insects also use
>it for comms. Having been attacked by tree ants and other types
>fairly often I've never believed the "pheromone" story - they
>react too fast, over too wide an area, and are too concerted in
>their appraisal of my location (and intentions).

Communication between tree ants by radio or by feeler-waving or
by anything (including telepathy) operating at the speed of
light could take place across a swarm 186 miles wide in one
millisecond. You don't need superluminal signalling unless
you've done some pretty fancy experiments.

More to the point, watching flocks of birds or shoals of fish
has convinced many people until recently that this amazing
synchrokinesis implies hidden communication. But studies using
computer simulations show how a few simple rules (like those of
cellular automata) can give rise to flocking behaviour. For
example, you specify three steering rules for each individual,
Separation (steer to avoid crowding local flockmates) Alignment
(steer towards the average heading of local flockmates) and
Cohesion (steer to move toward the average position of local
flockmates) and you get eerie collective behaviour. There're
dozens of web resources, papers and simulations accessible at

http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/

>It appears that even humans use it - for consciousness and
>perceptions

"Appears" is a long way from "is the case". And humans use what
for what exactly? If you are citing some theory of quantum
consciousness then you need to be more specific. But in order to
be relevant to the matter at hand you also need to show that
this theory requires instantaneous FTL information transfer by
entangled states, and if you can do that you will have produced
something which is _not_ sanctioned by the quantum theory whose
authoritative sanction you seek. There is _no_place_ in QT for
FTL signalling by entanglement (but of course that's only
"opinion stuff" coming from countless physicists who are not to
be trusted on account of them being so stupid and so cowed by
vested interests - you probably have a quote somewhere from the
only physicist on the planet who has a contrary opinion, and
that opinion will be your benchmark).

>Quote #3

>"In a new experiment, we replicate the Moutoussis/Zeki paradigm
>in a way that allows these two alternative interpretations to
>be resolved, and which allows statistical test of the
>'microconsciousness' theory. Even isolating those trials in
>which perceptual pairing is confirmed by subject report, we
>find >that the Inequality is violated. We conclude that the
>activity of cells in V5 must indeed depend partly on colour
>input and the activity of cells in V4 partly on motion. Visual
>consciousness must then be considered non-local and
>inseparable: the microconsciousness does not exist."

>http://www.isc.cnrs.fr/FPAR.htm#Duggins

Bell's Inequalities are violated (according to most contemporary
opinion, though some people would like tiny experimental
loopholes closed further) radically in QT. It is widely held to
be an essentially nonlocal theory, by the same physicists who
will also tell you that FTL signalling is impossible because
locality is _not_violated in the transfer of information. How is
this?

Because, as I've said numerous times now (once more for luck)
quantum communications channels are mixed channels that use both
quantum information and classical information (QI and CI). CI is
what constitutes a signal, a message. QI does not. The two
coexist in the essential causal structure in a way that isn't
really understood (which is where the caveat about "future
physics" comes in) but the total combined state is somehow a
distributed thing. However, being a distributed state is exactly
what makes it _not_ a signal.

A signal presupposes the here/now, there/then structure of
spacetime. If the world had no local spacetime structure then
the concept of a signal would not exist. This is very subtle,
but similarly in a distributed theory of consciousness one is
saying that the total state nonlocally involves A and B in a way
which subsumes and subordinates the idea of a communication from
A to B (analogous to parallel rather than serial processing).
Your notion that entangled photons can be exploited for
instantaneous cosmic signalling and ET eavesdropping between
galaxy A and galaxy B is a very old-fashioned sort of fallacy.
It presupposes precisely the absence of such a distributed
state, and over-emphasises the fact that we, as primitive
humans, are locally confined to A _then_ B, on the light cone,
which is the reason we need communications in the first place.
More profoundly interesting is the implication of QT that there
is a distributed quantum state subsuming galaxies A and B. It's
a very mysterious thing, and you could even speculate about a
nonlocal "quantum macroconsciousness" on this level. But this is
something utterly, utterly different from the unworkable (and
quaint in comparison) idea of a sort of entanglement radio
sending messages across space.

>As A.R. Wallace said "there is no law of nature yet known to us
>but may be apparently contravened by the action of more
>recondite laws or forces" - and we are only just beginning to
>find out how right he was.

"We" are, unfortunately you are not, that's the problem here.
I'm afraid those laws and forces are more recondite than you
think.

>Fortunately (or not) I don't see the CIA-led NASA/JPL accepting
>your veto, nor Russia, China, Europe or other interested
>parties.

Finally we're back to the ESA quantum encryption experiment: I
say again, and for the last time, this is of great interest to
all of those parties, and more, but it has nothing to do with
FTL communication. You want to continue believing it has, fine,
enjoy your club of one. The insult you offer to all of physics,
by wilfully reducing its decades of conscientious experimental
and theoretical work on QM nonlocality to something as easily
dismissable as "my veto" (I say 'wilfully' because the truth of
it is not only open to you to discover easily but is actually
made available through links recommended on your own web page),
is pretty rum. And you rant about suppression!

Martin Shough

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
             --Nietzsche



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com