[escepticos] Q pensais de esto? RV: Teleportation news

["MANUEL VILLA" <j015254103@...>]

-----Original Message-----
De: Atkeson, John C <John.C.Atkeson en noaa.gov>
Para: HIT-list en asisem.org <HIT-list en asisem.org>
Fecha: martes 16 de diciembre de 1997 2:04
Asunto: HIT: Teleportation news


>>>
> B has been imprinted with M's polarization value, across the whole galaxy,
>instantaneously.
> This does not mean that faster-than-light information transfer has
occurred.
><<
>  Oi, seems like a contradiction in terms.
>
>  You'd think the information went or it didn't.  If it didn't, then no
proof
>of teleportation.  If it did, why wait for a phone call?  As Walt Cuirle
>said, you could just synchronize your watches.  I think the article is
>leaving something important out about the content of that call...
>  At any rate, if you need a phone call to resolve the communication then
it
>wouldn't have much use for the wireless computer suggested in the
interview.
>  Might be good for encryption, though.
>
>
>  The article also says that particle A starts out "in a fuzzy,
undetermined
>state"  but also that "by ensuring that M's polarization is complementary
to
>A's, then B's polarization would now have to assume the same value as M's."
>
>  How can they ensure M is complimentary to A without first looking at A?
>
>  Unless... maybe they mean that *after* A and M have combined, they verify
>that they were complimentary?
>
>  Following this reasoning, that A and B must be opposite, and that the
>message only xmits if A and M are opposite, I get this truth table:
>
>   M + A      far away B
>   1   1          0
>   1   0          1
>   0   1          0
>   0   0          1
>
>  So B is only equal to M if A and M are opposite.  Otherwise, no go.  The
>phone call is to tell Laboratory B that M and A were indeed opposite.
>  But that's silly!  A and B are opposite so M is irrelevent either way...
>
>  Ok, maybe when they say no transmission, they really mean no
transmission:
>   M + A      far away B
>   1   1          X
>   1   0          1
>   0   1          0
>   0   0          X
>
>  Where X means indeterminate or random results.  Then you need a phone
call
>to confirm that M and A were opposite.
>  Now that fits everything they say, and it's a toughie to solve.  How DO
you
>tell signal from noise without a confirmation call?  Even if you send a
>statistically large number of bits.
>  Yet every time you phone with any information at all you are right;
>elsewise the answer will be random.
>
>
>  Harumf.  This reasoning smells funky, I think I'm off track.
>  John
>
>
>