🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Nov.12.19.37.01.1992.405@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>[re Sarfatti]
>>I'm not going to sound like a broken record, so this will be
>>absolutely my last contribution to the debate: please, somebody,
>>DO THE EXPERIMENT.  This issue will never be decided on the
>>basis of scripture, dogma, and anathema.  Only Nature knows;
>>go ask her.
>
>Look, Robert, you're not giving us credit.  The issue is not, (1) does 
>this method of FTL communication exist?  The issue is, (2) does
>orthodox QM imply this possibility?  
>
>(1) can only be tested by experiment, but no compelling reason has been
>given to believe it.  Unless you or anybody else is interested enough 
>to actually *fund* the experiment, it won't get done.
>
>On the other hand, (2) is possible to discuss mathematically.  The 
>problem is that Sarfatti evades all attempts to construct a rigorous
>description of his apparatus and calculations.  You seem to have a 
>good grasp of quantum mechanics - so can you tell us what he's talking
>about?

I already told Robert this.  Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently eloquent to
get my point across.  But let me just say that I agree completely with
Benjamin Weiner's point.  It makes perfect sense to argue about what can
or cannot happen according to orthodox QM without doing any experiments.
If Sarfatti claimed he had a NEW THEORY that contradicted orthodox QM
one would have to see if his theory was consistent and met experimental
tests.  But he seems to be claiming that orthodox QM predicts FTL
communication.  Of course, his way of doing orthodox QM looks very
unorthodox, i.e., wrong.