Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
Communication with advanced waves allows instantaneous communication at a distance which is in conformity with relativity since all interactions take place at the speed of light. ...By advanced waves it will arrive at Earth at 11:20, 40 minutes before first message is sent.
Long distance com's in space. Talking 100drs of light years away instantly.In a test looking at atoms/particles, they had the ability to change atoms/particles to op charges or to different atoms or particles then back to the same.What the test did, was had 2 computers. 1 on the mainland and 1 on an island a small distance away. They had the ability to change the particle to the ops charge and to the same particle as the 1 on the mainland. They then where able to change it back to what it was.Looking at that, I noticed they could change the atoms/particles and get readings for possible new radar or coms.Can we also change entangled atoms/particles in the same way? That can work for coms and possible entangled radar.Even if entangled with other particles they will all change them back giving us sos readings.Have know idea if it really works, but after I sent china the messages they clamed it works, and are building a Chinese embassy in Adelaide for me. But saying that I sent them 300 other weapons ideas like fields around tanks and so on.All I can say it they had particles or atoms separated, and they could talk to each other. The one on the mainland had the ability to change the other particle or atom into a different 1, or the same one on the mainland....then change it back.So they could 100% change it and change it back.I am saying we can't read entangled atoms/particles spin, so we can change them then change them back doing sos
Quote from: meberbs on 05/04/2017 04:27 pmAs far as detecting advanced waves, this can't happen under the no-communication theorem (note that this is a theorem, so unlike the chronology protection conjecture, you can't handwave it away.)The no-communication theorem is related to the measurement of an entangled quantum state, and I agree, quantum entanglement can’t be used for instantaneous communication.But what does this have to do with the detection of advanced waves? This is a completely different phenomenon.
As far as detecting advanced waves, this can't happen under the no-communication theorem (note that this is a theorem, so unlike the chronology protection conjecture, you can't handwave it away.)
Because in relativity, two events which are simultaneous in one reference frame are not guaranteed to be simultaneous in another reference frame. It is possible to have one reference frame in which two events are simultaneous, and a second reference frame in which those same two events are not simultaneous, and therefore information passing from one point instantly to another in the first will be traveling backwards in time in the second.
Quote from: meberbs on 05/04/2017 06:14 pmAdvanced waves is one explanation/interpretation of how entanglement works.This is true.QuoteWhen you talk about advanced waves you are talking about entanglement.This is not true. Read the original Wheeler-Feynman 1945 paper. There is no mention of entanglement there. The concept of advanced waves emerges from classical electrodynamics (advanced solutions of Maxwell’s equations), long before the emergence of quantum mechanics.
Advanced waves is one explanation/interpretation of how entanglement works.
When you talk about advanced waves you are talking about entanglement.
pulses in duration of 6 ns to 24 ns, wavelength from 91 cm to 200 cm
There was not just one run, but many runs with different pulse durations, performed at different wavelengths with different parts of equipment.
The answer is in the paper. One of the reasons is, if you use a receiving antenna of the appropriate size, you can’t detect advanced waves. There are two more reasons explained in the paper.
Quote from: meberbs on 05/04/2017 08:47 pmAnd in what way does this change the fact that you are running equipment in a regime guaranteed to generate spurious effects. (Skimming the paper it looks like you are way, way short on doing actual data analysis, and had many null results that you are effectively ignoring.)But if I’m running equipment in a regime guaranteed to generate spurious effects, why I don't see those effects constantly? The null results only appear if the following conditions are not met:1. The experiment is carried out at wavelengths greater than 21 cm. 2. The detection is done with a λ/6.7 or smaller antenna.3. The antennas are placed so that a line connecting them, when extended behind the receiving antenna, points to the sky at an angle of at least 3° above the horizon (In favorable weather conditions).QuoteI didn't notice any other reasons when skimming the paper. This reason seem to amount to saying that the advanced waves will be proportional to the amount of emitted energy that will never be absorbed in the future. This amount is effectively 0, and it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. (You have heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image right?)The key part here is “that will never be absorbed in the future”. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image is image of the past. From Wikipedia: Looking back approximately 13 billion years (between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang) it has been used to search for galaxies that existed at that time.
And in what way does this change the fact that you are running equipment in a regime guaranteed to generate spurious effects. (Skimming the paper it looks like you are way, way short on doing actual data analysis, and had many null results that you are effectively ignoring.)
I didn't notice any other reasons when skimming the paper. This reason seem to amount to saying that the advanced waves will be proportional to the amount of emitted energy that will never be absorbed in the future. This amount is effectively 0, and it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. (You have heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image right?)
Quote from: meberbs on 05/05/2017 12:37 amFigures 2A, 3B and 3C clearly show false positives, because the signals are aligned in phase, which is not expected in general if they were advanced waves. Some of the other figures seem to show this as well, but are less clear if this is the case.The signals can be in phase or out of phase, it depends on exact distance between the antennas at a certain wavelength. When I slowly increase (or decrease) this distance, signals come out of phase, and then in phase, and so on.
Figures 2A, 3B and 3C clearly show false positives, because the signals are aligned in phase, which is not expected in general if they were advanced waves. Some of the other figures seem to show this as well, but are less clear if this is the case.
QuoteThere are plenty of reasons the different configurations you list could make the signal come and go, there is nowhere near enough data in the paper to make any conclusions, and based on what data is there your judgment of the presence of a signal seems biased.Can you list some of these reasons?
There are plenty of reasons the different configurations you list could make the signal come and go, there is nowhere near enough data in the paper to make any conclusions, and based on what data is there your judgment of the presence of a signal seems biased.
QuoteAlso the matter from the galaxies in the Hubble images are still there today, and will still be there in 13 billion years. (Sure, stars will have died, and new ones born, but so what?) You contesting on this point makes it seem like you aren't bothering with critical thinking.The idea that the ever-expanding universe is transparent to electromagnetic radiation of certain wavelengths is not mine. See for example: Davies (1972) “Is the universe transparent or opaque?”
Also the matter from the galaxies in the Hubble images are still there today, and will still be there in 13 billion years. (Sure, stars will have died, and new ones born, but so what?) You contesting on this point makes it seem like you aren't bothering with critical thinking.
The paper you just cited has some useful information, but it is for old light that reaches Earth. They explicitly expected different results if you change frequency (RF instead of optical) and does not all cover how much of your emitted energy hits stars, planets, nebula, etc.
Using this effect, the authors of the new study achieved direct communication between sites without carrier particle transmission.
Quote from: ellindsey on 05/04/2017 05:39 pmBecause in relativity, two events which are simultaneous in one reference frame are not guaranteed to be simultaneous in another reference frame. It is possible to have one reference frame in which two events are simultaneous, and a second reference frame in which those same two events are not simultaneous, and therefore information passing from one point instantly to another in the first will be traveling backwards in time in the second.I am still confused because you have an implied parameter. Not only are the two events no longer simultaneous but that event A in reference frame one precedes event B while the opposite can happen in reference frame two? And that the two events can convey that information to each other? Does not matter what a third party observer can detect, that does not imply FTL communication.
I agree that it is more likely a systematic error than a real effect. But although the odds are small, I think that it’s worth redoing with other equipment, to determine whether this is real or not, considering that it is a simple and inexpensive experiment.
QuoteAlso, what are you changing in that gif? It really doesn't seem consistent with any of your major variables.Absolutely nothing! I was 10 meters away, and nothing was changed near the experiment. That is 8 times accelerated, 80-second clip, from one hour video, compressed to 10 seconds. This cyclically repeated more than one hour. My guess is that this is a consequence of sporadic E fading, caused by an unusual condition in the lower ionosphere layer.
Also, what are you changing in that gif? It really doesn't seem consistent with any of your major variables.