2018.03.22 17:39:03 (976860819798544386) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (976783257126744065):
Why do you keep trying to weasel out of finishing the Faraday-cage analysis? Is it because you're starting to realize how stupid your "cancel EM waves" claim was, and you don't want to admit it? Actually _understanding_ the Faraday example would help you with other examples too.
2018.03.21 20:29:22 (976541296193081344) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)":
If she does it too quickly, then the electrons won't be able to move fast enough to cancel a rapidly changing field, but from inside the cage, you still can't determine what is going on outside. The fields on the cage are not sufficient to determine the field everywhere outside.
2018.03.21 22:33:07 (976572435578449920) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (976541296193081344):
So you're claiming that a Faraday cage blocks magnetic fields? What precisely is the physical mechanism by which you imagine that this happens?
2018.03.22 12:30:25 (976783149530218496) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)":
Depends on the magnetic permeability of the cage. Or stick your lab in a solenoid. The reason I suggested putting the lab in a deep potential well is that the discussion is simple.. So 1) do you claim a potential barrier is ineffective at trapping information? 2) do you claim
2018.03.22 12:30:50 (976783257126744065) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (976783149530218496):
...that measuring the EM field on a shell is sufficient to determine the EM field everywhere inside or outside that shell? 3) Do you believe that the holographic conjecture means that it is impossible to localise information?