2018.03.21 17:53:38 (976502102896840705) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (976381770445869056):
You claimed that Faraday cages "cancel EM waves". I keep asking what this is supposed to mean mathematically, and you keep dodging. Do you claim that an EM sensor inside a cage can't detect a lightning bolt hitting the cage from the outside? How about sensor outside, bolt inside?
2018.03.21 09:53:57 (976381387052912641) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (976381238234763264):
Take a photon or electron which travels down one of two paths. It doesn't emit lightning, but it does emit some EM waves I want to block. But I can clearly block this, in fact I don't even need the cage -- we do interference experiments all the time and it is impossible to 4/
2018.03.21 09:54:32 (976381532129714176) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (976381387052912641):
tell which path the electron or photon took. If it was possible, we wouldn't see interference in double slit experiments. I also gave you the example of constructing the lab inside a deep potential so that nothing below a certain energy escapes to infinity. 5/
2018.03.21 09:55:02 (976381660181692418) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (976381532129714176):
You called this a red herring, but it's not. You are claiming a fundamental physical law which prevents information from being kept local and I know of no such principle. You make reference to holography to back this up, but holography says nothing about this -- it is merely 6/
2018.03.21 09:55:29 (976381770445869056) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (976381660181692418):
an equivalence of two theories. So if you are going to claim that physics doesn't allow events to be localised, please tell me what this physical principle is. 7/7