OT: red meat is bad for you and bad for the planet...

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:56:01 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2019-11-13, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:23:45 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and
B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

You could put the polarization measurements in separate envelopes and
mail them to Australia to be opened and compared in 2050. Same
results.

No, you can't.

You'd need to know the angle of the grids wanted in 2050.
things get spooky when the grid angles aren't 90 degrees (or some
multiple)

Sure, the two detectors have to agree on what angle to use. UP-DOWN or
EAST-WEST or whatever.

If one letter in one envelope says UP, the other must say DOWN.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-11-13, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:23:45 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and
B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

You could put the polarization measurements in separate envelopes and
mail them to Australia to be opened and compared in 2050. Same
results.

No, you can't.

You'd need to know the angle of the grids wanted in 2050.
things get spooky when the grid angles aren't 90 degrees (or some
multiple)

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

 

[George Herold]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 11:49:24 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428


I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Is the objection to the "instantaneously" part not being able to be
strictly experimentally verified because the no-cloning/no-broadcast
theorems themselves forbid the instantaneous transfer of information
about the experiment?

Any other way would be the equivalent of a hidden-variables theory and
hidden-variables interpretations of QM have been discredited as
inconsistent with other experiments

No, hidden variable interpretations* are just as good as others.
(All QM 'interpretations' give the same results, some don't like the
hidden variable one because there is an extra equation.)
Since they all give same results use the easiest!
(which makes sense to me.)

George H.
(When I have to do QM I'm totally in the
shut up and calculate camp.)

*deBroglie-Bohm/ pilot wave, being perhaps the most popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

 

[George Herold]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:53:45 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:32:49 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 12:13 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:49:18 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428


I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and
can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as
opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very
different times.



Yes but once the first measurement is made the outcome of the second is
certain; the probability function of the entangled system has collapsed
immediately upon the first measurement and there is only certainty.
regardless if the measurement of the second particle of the entangled
pair is made some time later.

Just because the second experimenter does not know what the outcome will
be local to their frame of reference doesn't mean it's not
pre-determined. There's no universal "standard time" to judge
simultaneity by anyway in general relativity, which on the macro scale
at least QM must at least be consistent with, whether two events occur
in the future, the same time, or the past of one frame of reference all
depends on the properties of the other frame of reference you are
comparing to.

Suppose an atom emits entangled photon pair A and B.

Alice is close to the source and measures the polarization as UP. The
photon to Bob travels through a long polarization-maintaining optical
delay line. After Alice sees the UP photon, she can send a message to
Bob, "expect a photon at 14 nanoseconds after noon, GPS time, and it
will be DOWN."

That's cool.

It's not quite that simple, but your time delay idea is right.
The correlations are more complicated than you say...
but I'm not smart enough to explain them.
You can tell the difference between correlated photons
and correlated plus entangled photons by looking at the
statistics.

George H.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/11/2019 17:53, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:32:49 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 12:13 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:49:18 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428


I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and
can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as
opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very
different times.



Yes but once the first measurement is made the outcome of the second is
certain; the probability function of the entangled system has collapsed
immediately upon the first measurement and there is only certainty.
regardless if the measurement of the second particle of the entangled
pair is made some time later.

Just because the second experimenter does not know what the outcome will
be local to their frame of reference doesn't mean it's not
pre-determined. There's no universal "standard time" to judge
simultaneity by anyway in general relativity, which on the macro scale
at least QM must at least be consistent with, whether two events occur
in the future, the same time, or the past of one frame of reference all
depends on the properties of the other frame of reference you are
comparing to.

Although for the purposes of most of these experiments the rest frame of
the entangled emitter isn't a bad choice of convenient reference frame.
You are free of course to choose any inertial reference frame that you
like up to and including riding on either photon.

Suppose an atom emits entangled photon pair A and B.

Alice is close to the source and measures the polarization as UP. The
photon to Bob travels through a long polarization-maintaining optical
delay line. After Alice sees the UP photon, she can send a message to
Bob, "expect a photon at 14 nanoseconds after noon, GPS time, and it
will be DOWN."

That's cool.

More like lukewarm.
Transmission of polarisers and QE of photon detectors is never 100% so
there is a chance that the UP photon goes undetected by Bob's kit.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 10:10:23 PM UTC-5, Local Favorite wrote:

On 11/12/2019 05:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

They will be eating insects soon enough. We should be looking ahead, to
the environmental consequences there.

Yeah, the birds have to eat too. We can't be eating all the insects. It's not like they will make more.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 3:29:03 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

"Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

Dew tell.
And how in the heck could one determine that?
Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and
B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.
The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

All of the above is wrong including the starting premise. There is no change in the state of B. Entanglement has to do with determining the state as in Schrodinger's Cat. The state is what it is but until it is observed, the possible states are entangled... whatever that means. When the state of A is observed the entanglement is untangled and the state resolved, not defined... of both particles. Both particles were always in the state they are in after the untanglement. Since no information was transported, no violation of the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 3:15:15 AM UTC-5, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 13/11/19 01:14, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

An interesting paper. But should it consider the "Reductio ad absurdum"?

What would happen if we all became vegetarians/vegans overnight? It's
true that the Earth can grow a lot more crops if we don't have to use
any of the land for growing "red meat". But, according to the article,
people would become healthier and so live for longer. Perhaps life
expectancy would increase to such an extent that the concern of "aging
populations" would become the greatest concern. What would we do if an
even greater proportion of the population suffered from dementia in
their later years as physical diseases are defeated through changes to
diet and advances in medicine? Eventually we will defeat dementia, too.
Illness won't be the problem; personal space will.

At some stage there would be a limit to how many humans the Earth could
support. What happens then?

Soylent Green, anyone?...

I think you missed the point. For the most part the foods which are healthiest also have minimal impacts on the environment and can be grown in larger amounts using less land and resources.

So it's a win-win. I'm more of a Soylent Red sort myself. Besides, how can you recover the inefficiencies of your process by people feeding on people? That has got to be the literal worst in terms of impact on everything, the earth and people.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Martin Brown]

On 14/11/2019 17:59, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 3:29:03 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

"Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

Dew tell. And how in the heck could one determine that? Measure A
to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot measure B
at same time because measurement would "changes" A. Wait a
minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and B, it
takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.
The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only
approximated.

All of the above is wrong including the starting premise. There is
no change in the state of B. Entanglement has to do with determining
the state as in Schrodinger's Cat. The state is what it is but until
it is observed, the possible states are entangled... whatever that
means.

Mathematically it means a linear super position of a live cat and a dead
cat but you really do not know which one until you open the box.

Schrodinger's cat was a thought experiment to highlight the apparent
absurdity of quantum mechanics but so far it holds OK for wavefunctions
of all small enough macro objects that have been tested as well.

When the state of A is observed the entanglement is untangled
and the state resolved, not defined... of both particles. Both
particles were always in the state they are in after the
untanglement. Since no information was transported, no violation of
the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4

It is an expression of a conservation law in another guise, but since
you are free to choose which property to imbue the particle you test
with the wavefunction has to collapse to eigenstates of that operator.
The other particle must then be in the corresponding anti-state. It
cannot always have been in that state since you get to choose the test.

It stems from the EPR paradox and Bell's Inequality Theorem.

Many worlds interpretation can get you out of jail free but for a price.

It is entirely possible that when we have the next level GUT it will
remove this apparent and worrying non-locality "action at a distance"
problem in much the same way as GR got rid of Newton's instantaneous
gravity that conflicted with the tenets of special relativity.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:31:59 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/11/2019 17:53, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:32:49 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 12:13 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:49:18 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428


I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and
can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as
opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very
different times.



Yes but once the first measurement is made the outcome of the second is
certain; the probability function of the entangled system has collapsed
immediately upon the first measurement and there is only certainty.
regardless if the measurement of the second particle of the entangled
pair is made some time later.

Just because the second experimenter does not know what the outcome will
be local to their frame of reference doesn't mean it's not
pre-determined. There's no universal "standard time" to judge
simultaneity by anyway in general relativity, which on the macro scale
at least QM must at least be consistent with, whether two events occur
in the future, the same time, or the past of one frame of reference all
depends on the properties of the other frame of reference you are
comparing to.

Although for the purposes of most of these experiments the rest frame of
the entangled emitter isn't a bad choice of convenient reference frame.
You are free of course to choose any inertial reference frame that you
like up to and including riding on either photon.

Suppose an atom emits entangled photon pair A and B.

Alice is close to the source and measures the polarization as UP. The
photon to Bob travels through a long polarization-maintaining optical
delay line. After Alice sees the UP photon, she can send a message to
Bob, "expect a photon at 14 nanoseconds after noon, GPS time, and it
will be DOWN."

That's cool.

More like lukewarm.
Transmission of polarisers and QE of photon detectors is never 100% so
there is a chance that the UP photon goes undetected by Bob's kit.

Can't help it of Bob's gear is mediocre. Maybe it's a gamma ray that
he can't miss. But if he does see that photon at the right time, it
won't be UP.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com