2018.03.17 18:29:20 (975061537558687745) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (974423960858316800):
So you think that EM variations at the boundary of a Faraday cage are tied to EM variations inside but independent of EM variations outside? Can you please maintain the intellectual discipline to focus on resolving this dispute instead of burying it under a flood of red herrings?
2018.03.17 19:50:37 (975081992885645312) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
Concretely, suppose a lightning bolt hits a Faraday cage from the outside. Q1: Do you agree that this induces motion of electrons along the boundary of the Faraday cage? Q2: Do you agree that this motion of electrons is visible to an EM sensor on the inside of the Faraday cage?
2018.03.21 04:10:47 (976295024957710336) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
To review: @postquantum instantly comments on my paper, and as part of this he claims that Faraday cages "cancel EM waves". When I ask whether he agrees that a lightning bolt hitting the cage makes electrons move, visible to an EM sensor, he's silent for four days and counting.
2018.03.15 14:00:28 (974269097394524161) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (974268961650077697):
I agree that a real-world implementation will not be perfect and leak some information to a sufficiently close and sensitive detector. But for any 1-epsilon of paranoia there is a 1-delta of conductor. 2/
2018.03.15 14:01:22 (974269322305703936) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (974269097394524161):
You focus on the holographic principle but the HP has no implications for security. It is a conjecture that a theory of gravity is mathematically equivalent to a theory on its boundary (a CFT). Your argument = if I have a quantum computer that can simulate the universe then 3/
2018.03.15 20:59:22 (974374516246876161) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (974269322305703936):
If you understand the Faraday-cage example then you can't possibly believe that you're accurately characterizing my paper (let alone the holographic principle!). Let's focus on resolving the Faraday-cage dispute first.
2018.03.16 00:15:50 (974423960858316800) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)":
By cancelling, I just mean that the field outside the cage is only determined by the value of the field on the cage, not on what is going on inside the cage. A simpler example is to put your lab inside a potential well. There is no limitation to how deep or "thick" the well 1/