[forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Loop quantum teleportation
- Dear Dimiter
Thank you for your reply.
> May I suggest that you take a look at my web site before spending too muchDGC:
> mental energy thinking about "quantum computation"?
It's fun; I don't spend "mental energy":-)
Apart from that, I dare to speculate that quantum computation may be
possible under the conditions provided by the human brain ONLY,
I'm afraid the workings of the human brain are not relevant to the theory
behind the kind of quantum computation I know a little about. The whole
idea of quantum computation rests on the assumption that QT is right about
distant particles remaining "entangled". The history of this idea, though,
is distinctly murky. It's not as if action at a distance was an intended
feature of the theory, it just dropped out of the mathematical woodwork!
[See, perhaps, the historical description sketched in my Tangled Methods
paper: http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Tangled/tangled.html ]
> Hopefully, there will be a few spin-offs here and there from the processof trying to make
> this work, but the fact is that the theory behind it is false!DGC:
If it is a FACT that the theory behind quantum computation is false,
then please send your proof to John Preskill
I suppose I should have said that I AM PERSONALLY CERTAIN the theory is
false, not that I can prove it, though, if pressed, I might be able to point
to a couple of suspect assumptions. What I really meant, though, was that
(a) the fact that the prediction implies nonlocality means that, if correct,
it destroys the whole basis of science (which, indeed, is what we are
(b) there is no valid evidence that the prediction IS correct.
The evidence consists almost entirely of the results of optical experiments,
conducted from about 1969 to the present. Not one of them has used the
actual test that John Bell proposed. This is for good reason: his test
assumed that every particle emitted was detected, but with light this never
happens. As a believer in a purely wave model of light, I see the fact that
detection is not perfect is inevitable. Be this as it may, Clauser, Horne
and others devised modified versions of Bell's test that could be applied
with imperfect detection.
It's a very long story, I'm afraid: the tests have been abused in a variety
of ways. The most popular involve deciding to ignore the "detection
loophole" and assuming that you can substitute the total number of observed
coincidences for the number of pairs emitted when estimating your
"correlations". My first published paper was about the bias that this
introduces. I had discovered it independently, but I now know that the
first paper that mentions it was in 1970 and several others have
re-discovered it since. See http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9611037 ,
published as "The Chaotic Ball: An Intuitive Analogy for EPR Experiments",
Found. Phys. Lett. 9, 357 (1996).
> Sometimes I wonder if they are just pulling our legs!DGC:
Highly unlikely; see
I couldn't open this just now. Will try again another day. It's not so
much that they are pulling our legs as that they are having fun and getting
research funding and why should they let on that it is probably all a
fantasy? After all, they can't PROVE it is nonsense any more than I can,
and I don't suppose they have looked at the original "evidence" as
critically as I have. I had no vested interest one way or the other, just
searching for the truth, trying to help science get back on the right track
- Gentleman, Gentleman, PLEASE!!!!!.........amusing, but ONLY propulsion,
engineering, and physics!!!!,....NO off-topic discussions please!!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 06 March 2000 15:29
Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Re:Re:Re:-->Pink mathematical
> Dear Adrien,
> >> Dear Neil
> >> Thanks! I had a look at
> >> http://www.pmicro.kz/MISC/UFL/Almanach/N1_99/Insight.htm .
> >> I believe I already regularly practice your "merging vision", but I'm
> >> I probably do not have enough faith to achieve "soft vision". Never
> >> I shall just have to make do with my present episodes in which I feel
> >one with the whole universe.
> >== That's ranked as "Nature Mysticism" ok it its own way but it fails to
> >one further in or higher up or better cleared.
> >Slightly more relaxing than
> Ha,ha,hilarious! Adrien you are hilarious! Lucky you were not born during
> Victorian ages or during catholic Inquisition!!!
> They did not like hilarious people at these epochs,same as in the White
> As far as I am concerned,masturbation does not relax me! I need the
> or endoreal 3 D + t shapes!!! I will not tell you my dreams of this
> night...I was with a great Philippina!Ouh là là. And what great buttocks.
> Do you know,by the way,that in Egypt the government has forbidden the use
> of Viagra?
> The reason was because the egyptian government felt Viagra would destroy
> families even though in the muslim religion you have the right to have 4
> wives!!!! Hilarious.
> In French we call a hot man a "hot rabbit".Same in English?
> It seems we have been drifting away from forcefield propulsion since some
> days,even though the above topic remains in the "propulsion" sector but
> vectored by muscles rather than fields!
> And not that kind of propulsion which will bring us to the moon,at least
> the moon we see in the skies...
> Goes for bodily, sensory phenomena and it does not clear the
> >mind up. It does not need 'faith', merely trust in the incredible
> >of the human mind. However if one can FEEL at one with the whole
> >why not consider this goes for thinking and awareness too, as well as all
> >the action?
> Can you elaborrrate?
> To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> Planning a party? iParty.com is your complete source for party planning
> supplies, with everything you need to throw the perfect party!
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/forcefieldpropulsionphysics
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications