Blast From The Past
- Thread starter Zeshua
- Start date
Darby
Epochal Historian
CMAY,
I don't necessarily want to rain on your parade but why don't you take up your personal matter with Sue, well, personally? I mean take it up via PM or email.
I'm pretty sure that few people here have a clue about whatever your CC problem was or even cares about it. And I don't think that anyone here wants a "problem" from another site to migrate to TTI.
Thanks
I don't necessarily want to rain on your parade but why don't you take up your personal matter with Sue, well, personally? I mean take it up via PM or email.
I'm pretty sure that few people here have a clue about whatever your CC problem was or even cares about it. And I don't think that anyone here wants a "problem" from another site to migrate to TTI.
Thanks
Peter_Novak
Quantum Scribe
From http://www.physorg.com/news113824784.html
Nonlocality of a Single Particle Demonstrated Without Objections
By Lisa Zyga
Usually when physicists talk about nonlocality in quantum mechanics, they’re referring to the fact that two particles can have immediate effects on each other, even when separated by large distances. Einstein famously called the phenomena “spooky interaction at a distance†because information about a particle seems to be traveling faster than the speed of light, violating the laws of causality.
Although the idea is counterintuitive, nonlocality is now widely accepted by physicists, albeit almost exclusively for two-particle systems. So far, no experiment has sufficiently demonstrated the nonlocality of a single particle, although explanations have been proposed since 1991 (starting with Tan, Walls, and Collett).
Since then, the issue has been strongly debated by physicists. In 1994, Lucien Hardy proposed a modified scheme of Tan, Walls, and Collett’s claim. However, others (notably Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger) objected to Hardy’s scheme, claiming that it was really a multi-particle effect in disguise, and could not be demonstrated experimentally.
Now, Jacob Dunningham from the University of Leeds and Vlatko Vedral from the University of Leeds and the National University of Singapore have modified Hardy’s scheme, publishing their results in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. By eliminating all unphysical inputs, their scheme allows for a real experiment, and ensures that only a single particle exhibits nonlocality. Plus, Dunningham and Vedral’s scheme not only applies to single photons, but to atoms and single massive particles, as well.
“The greatest significance of this work is that it shows how superposition and entanglement are the same ‘mystery,’†Dunningham explained to PhysOrg.com. “Feynman famously said that superposition is the only mystery in quantum mechanics, but more recently entanglement has been widely considered as an additional fundamental feature of quantum physics. Here we show that they are one and the same.â€
In Hardy’s original scheme, one photon and a vacuum state arrive at a beam splitter, a glass prism that splits a beam of light in two. Two observers, Alice and Bob, have the option to either measure one of the beams, or to combine their beam with a coherent light beam, split the resulting beam with another beam splitter, and then measure the two outputs (also known as a “homodyne detectionâ€).
Alice and Bob’s decisions could result in four possible combinations. First, if they both measure their beam from the original beam splitter, only one will detect a photon. Second, if Alice adds a coherent state to her beam while Bob measures his original split beam, Alice has two chances of detecting a photon, at the two outputs (c1, d1) of her beam splitter. Hardy showed that, if Alice detected a photon at c1, Bob would not detect a photon; but if Alice detected a photon at d1, Bob must detect a photon. In the third possibility, the roles of Alice and Bob are simply switched, with the same results.
In the fourth possibility, both Alice and Bob make homodyne detections. If they both detect particles at their d detectors (d1 and d2, respectively), then they both infer that the other must detect a photon from the original source. This is a problem, because they cannot both be right—there is only one original photon.
Hardy argued that this scheme demonstrates the nonlocality of a single particle when one eliminates the implicit local assumption that Alice’s result is independent of Bob’s measurement (and vice versa). Rather, one observer’s result does depend on the other’s measurement, so that, due to a nonlocal influence, the second observer’s measurement is determined by the first observer’s measurement.
“If we try and interpret this experimental scheme using only classical physics, it turns out that it is not possible for the outcomes of all four of the proposed experiments to be consistent,†Vedral explained. “The outcome of experiment four is not consistent with the others. Classical physics assumes that the particle exists independent of our observing (or measuring) it, and also that one measurement cannot influence a particle at a distance.
“For example, what Alice does cannot affect Bob’s particle,†he continued. “Since the outcomes of this scheme are not consistent with classical physics, we must drop one of the assumptions. This means that if we wish to maintain the view that reality exists independent of our measurements (e.g. the moon is there even if we don’t look at it), we are forced to accept that the world is nonlocal. This is how Hardy based his argument for nonlocality on the contradictory outcomes.â€
However, Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger took issue with Hardy’s argument, pointing out that combining a photon and a vacuum does not result in an observable state, and therefore could not be performed in a real experiment. They even attempted a scheme that didn’t use these so-called “partlycle†superpositions, but found that the entire system then demonstrated nonlocality, making it impossible to attribute nonlocality to a single particle.
Dunningham and Vedral’s proposal makes a few key changes to Hardy’s scheme. First, instead of using coherent states of a photon and vacuum, they use mixed states—a mixture of coherent states averaged over all phases of the particles. In this way, they don’t violate superselection rules and so avoid objections that have been raised before.
Then, for the homodyne detections, they ensure that the coherent light beam combining with the original beam has the same phase. Having the same phase is key, as it ensures that Alice and Bob can consistently compare their measurement results. The coherent states are only classically correlated with the single particle state. This means that, when Alice and Bob perform their homodyne detections, and one detection influences the other, the nonlocality must stem from the original single-particle state.
Because the main importance is maintaining a common average phase—but not a specific phase—Dunningham and Vedral’s scheme could, in principle, be carried out in the laboratory. Also, the researchers suggest that, by using beam splitters for atoms and atom detectors, their scheme could conceivably verify the nonlocality of a single massive particle, in addition to a massless photon.
“An important feature of this work is that it shows how this experiment could be carried out without violating the number conservation superselection rule,†Dunningham said. “This is important because people are often happy to accept such violations for massless particles (e.g. photons) but not for massive particles such as atoms. By avoiding this violation altogether, we show that the outcomes of this proposed experiment should be the same for both massive and massless particles.â€
The scientists note an interesting comparison of their result to a principle of Leibniz’s metaphysics, the identity of indiscernibles. According to the principle, a pair of entangled quantum particles must be indiscernible from a single particle, since both objects have in common all the same properties—this is the only stipulation of the principle, number being irrelevant. The single-state nonlocality demonstrated here reinforces the equivalence of a single state and an entangled state—giving more credence to the position that quantum field theory, where fields are fundamental and particles secondary, is a close representation of reality.
More information: Dunningham, Jacob and Vedral, Vlatko. “Nonlocality of a Single Particle.†Physical Review Letters 99, 180404 (2007).
Nonlocality of a Single Particle Demonstrated Without Objections
By Lisa Zyga
Usually when physicists talk about nonlocality in quantum mechanics, they’re referring to the fact that two particles can have immediate effects on each other, even when separated by large distances. Einstein famously called the phenomena “spooky interaction at a distance†because information about a particle seems to be traveling faster than the speed of light, violating the laws of causality.
Although the idea is counterintuitive, nonlocality is now widely accepted by physicists, albeit almost exclusively for two-particle systems. So far, no experiment has sufficiently demonstrated the nonlocality of a single particle, although explanations have been proposed since 1991 (starting with Tan, Walls, and Collett).
Since then, the issue has been strongly debated by physicists. In 1994, Lucien Hardy proposed a modified scheme of Tan, Walls, and Collett’s claim. However, others (notably Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger) objected to Hardy’s scheme, claiming that it was really a multi-particle effect in disguise, and could not be demonstrated experimentally.
Now, Jacob Dunningham from the University of Leeds and Vlatko Vedral from the University of Leeds and the National University of Singapore have modified Hardy’s scheme, publishing their results in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. By eliminating all unphysical inputs, their scheme allows for a real experiment, and ensures that only a single particle exhibits nonlocality. Plus, Dunningham and Vedral’s scheme not only applies to single photons, but to atoms and single massive particles, as well.
“The greatest significance of this work is that it shows how superposition and entanglement are the same ‘mystery,’†Dunningham explained to PhysOrg.com. “Feynman famously said that superposition is the only mystery in quantum mechanics, but more recently entanglement has been widely considered as an additional fundamental feature of quantum physics. Here we show that they are one and the same.â€
In Hardy’s original scheme, one photon and a vacuum state arrive at a beam splitter, a glass prism that splits a beam of light in two. Two observers, Alice and Bob, have the option to either measure one of the beams, or to combine their beam with a coherent light beam, split the resulting beam with another beam splitter, and then measure the two outputs (also known as a “homodyne detectionâ€).
Alice and Bob’s decisions could result in four possible combinations. First, if they both measure their beam from the original beam splitter, only one will detect a photon. Second, if Alice adds a coherent state to her beam while Bob measures his original split beam, Alice has two chances of detecting a photon, at the two outputs (c1, d1) of her beam splitter. Hardy showed that, if Alice detected a photon at c1, Bob would not detect a photon; but if Alice detected a photon at d1, Bob must detect a photon. In the third possibility, the roles of Alice and Bob are simply switched, with the same results.
In the fourth possibility, both Alice and Bob make homodyne detections. If they both detect particles at their d detectors (d1 and d2, respectively), then they both infer that the other must detect a photon from the original source. This is a problem, because they cannot both be right—there is only one original photon.
Hardy argued that this scheme demonstrates the nonlocality of a single particle when one eliminates the implicit local assumption that Alice’s result is independent of Bob’s measurement (and vice versa). Rather, one observer’s result does depend on the other’s measurement, so that, due to a nonlocal influence, the second observer’s measurement is determined by the first observer’s measurement.
“If we try and interpret this experimental scheme using only classical physics, it turns out that it is not possible for the outcomes of all four of the proposed experiments to be consistent,†Vedral explained. “The outcome of experiment four is not consistent with the others. Classical physics assumes that the particle exists independent of our observing (or measuring) it, and also that one measurement cannot influence a particle at a distance.
“For example, what Alice does cannot affect Bob’s particle,†he continued. “Since the outcomes of this scheme are not consistent with classical physics, we must drop one of the assumptions. This means that if we wish to maintain the view that reality exists independent of our measurements (e.g. the moon is there even if we don’t look at it), we are forced to accept that the world is nonlocal. This is how Hardy based his argument for nonlocality on the contradictory outcomes.â€
However, Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger took issue with Hardy’s argument, pointing out that combining a photon and a vacuum does not result in an observable state, and therefore could not be performed in a real experiment. They even attempted a scheme that didn’t use these so-called “partlycle†superpositions, but found that the entire system then demonstrated nonlocality, making it impossible to attribute nonlocality to a single particle.
Dunningham and Vedral’s proposal makes a few key changes to Hardy’s scheme. First, instead of using coherent states of a photon and vacuum, they use mixed states—a mixture of coherent states averaged over all phases of the particles. In this way, they don’t violate superselection rules and so avoid objections that have been raised before.
Then, for the homodyne detections, they ensure that the coherent light beam combining with the original beam has the same phase. Having the same phase is key, as it ensures that Alice and Bob can consistently compare their measurement results. The coherent states are only classically correlated with the single particle state. This means that, when Alice and Bob perform their homodyne detections, and one detection influences the other, the nonlocality must stem from the original single-particle state.
Because the main importance is maintaining a common average phase—but not a specific phase—Dunningham and Vedral’s scheme could, in principle, be carried out in the laboratory. Also, the researchers suggest that, by using beam splitters for atoms and atom detectors, their scheme could conceivably verify the nonlocality of a single massive particle, in addition to a massless photon.
“An important feature of this work is that it shows how this experiment could be carried out without violating the number conservation superselection rule,†Dunningham said. “This is important because people are often happy to accept such violations for massless particles (e.g. photons) but not for massive particles such as atoms. By avoiding this violation altogether, we show that the outcomes of this proposed experiment should be the same for both massive and massless particles.â€
The scientists note an interesting comparison of their result to a principle of Leibniz’s metaphysics, the identity of indiscernibles. According to the principle, a pair of entangled quantum particles must be indiscernible from a single particle, since both objects have in common all the same properties—this is the only stipulation of the principle, number being irrelevant. The single-state nonlocality demonstrated here reinforces the equivalence of a single state and an entangled state—giving more credence to the position that quantum field theory, where fields are fundamental and particles secondary, is a close representation of reality.
More information: Dunningham, Jacob and Vedral, Vlatko. “Nonlocality of a Single Particle.†Physical Review Letters 99, 180404 (2007).
Peter_Novak
Quantum Scribe
Well, she was right about the US Dollar tanking in 2007.
What was that she wrote again, something about "From seven to eleven..."?
A few here know what I'm talking about.
The news today is full of stories of the dollar tanking. She predicted it would start doing so in 2007. Said so a few years back. Maybe just a coincidence, yes, but if so, it's another in a long list of them.
What was that she wrote again, something about "From seven to eleven..."?
A few here know what I'm talking about.
The news today is full of stories of the dollar tanking. She predicted it would start doing so in 2007. Said so a few years back. Maybe just a coincidence, yes, but if so, it's another in a long list of them.
Peter_Novak
Quantum Scribe
Found it. On May 17th 2005, Zeshua posted the following to the Zeshua Group's FutureVoices website :
“Leis code is difficult
its secrets earned
seven to eleven
dalf the world turned.
Cards collapse
thy dollar not firm
twelve to fifteen
half the world burned.â€
Which at the time we interpreted as meaning that the US Dollar would suffer a terrible loss of value starting in 2007 and lasting (or progressing) until 2011. Interpretations being what they are, we were unsure of the accuracy of that reading, but wow, here it is at the end of 2007 and the news is filled with stories about how the dollar is now rather suddenly and dramatically sinking in value.
Anyway, as a prediction it is noteworthy IMO. While many people always seem to be "betting" or otherwise anticipating that the dollar will fall like this, Zeshua nailed the date. She could have guessed 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008 or any other date, but right now it's looking like she picked the right date.
For what it's worth.
“Leis code is difficult
its secrets earned
seven to eleven
dalf the world turned.
Cards collapse
thy dollar not firm
twelve to fifteen
half the world burned.â€
Which at the time we interpreted as meaning that the US Dollar would suffer a terrible loss of value starting in 2007 and lasting (or progressing) until 2011. Interpretations being what they are, we were unsure of the accuracy of that reading, but wow, here it is at the end of 2007 and the news is filled with stories about how the dollar is now rather suddenly and dramatically sinking in value.
Anyway, as a prediction it is noteworthy IMO. While many people always seem to be "betting" or otherwise anticipating that the dollar will fall like this, Zeshua nailed the date. She could have guessed 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008 or any other date, but right now it's looking like she picked the right date.
For what it's worth.
recall15
Dimensional Traveler
... than this:
Quoted:
"DOLLAR DROPS BELOW 75.0 XXX
What happened to the $ yesterday? after gaining some strength it plummeted again noe at 74.940"
end quoted from:
Link to GLP: Dollar Drops Below 75.0 XXX
--
Best Regards
Apollo16 Artifacts on the Moon Luna
Quoted:
"DOLLAR DROPS BELOW 75.0 XXX
What happened to the $ yesterday? after gaining some strength it plummeted again noe at 74.940"
end quoted from:
Link to GLP: Dollar Drops Below 75.0 XXX
--
Best Regards
Apollo16 Artifacts on the Moon Luna
Justsomeguy
Temporal Novice
Okay heres the key some statements of this poem may be literal and some are not if you simply google the term renaissance pi instead of the correct spelling of phi you get a completely different outcome and it's not arithmetic. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif look at the 1st hit that phrase gives you. Or possibly it's a display of how cryptic poems can be interpreted in a myriad of ways to suit the readers beliefs... :D
The other day I was sniffing wireless packets to make sure my network was secure and it dawned on me that the Z machine is possible, but only with the help of a custom radio designed with "proxy" features. I will briefly describe this device.
It has to have two features to make it work. The first part is just a receiver that accepts RF data in a publicized format. The Wifi protocols we use today as consumers will simply not work. They require a handshake when you connect. Z might be able to beam a signal back in time, but there is no way some router purchased today is going to be able to send a signal back to Z in the future. You need a radio that will receive a stream of data without needed to talk back to the sender. A lot of TV Satellites dishes for instance are "read only" like this. The receive a stream of data from far away and display information in a human understandable format.
So Z in the future builds a transmitter than can send RF to the past, he still needs some software and hardware assistance from the present. Someone needs to accept data from this "open" radio and proxy it to the internet. So basically a simple radio receiver and some custom software could do it. But "Wifi" has NOTHING to do with the theory of sending messages to the past because the handshake simply can not happen with today's technology. This forum would also have to stick around long enough for the person in the future to receive the replies.
The Z Machine would have to interface with a PC either through USB, RS232, Printer port, network jack, whatever. If anyone is interested in building a Z Machine, I can help with the software but I know nothing about hardware. Just that the signal format needs to be published and as common as possible. The drivers are the hardest part, you might be able to write a driver for a normal Wifi card that does this, eliminating the need to build special hardware, but I don't have any experience writing drivers. I'll keep my eyes open for a one way wireless transmitter/receiver combo that talks without a handshake that you can plugin to a PC.
It has to have two features to make it work. The first part is just a receiver that accepts RF data in a publicized format. The Wifi protocols we use today as consumers will simply not work. They require a handshake when you connect. Z might be able to beam a signal back in time, but there is no way some router purchased today is going to be able to send a signal back to Z in the future. You need a radio that will receive a stream of data without needed to talk back to the sender. A lot of TV Satellites dishes for instance are "read only" like this. The receive a stream of data from far away and display information in a human understandable format.
So Z in the future builds a transmitter than can send RF to the past, he still needs some software and hardware assistance from the present. Someone needs to accept data from this "open" radio and proxy it to the internet. So basically a simple radio receiver and some custom software could do it. But "Wifi" has NOTHING to do with the theory of sending messages to the past because the handshake simply can not happen with today's technology. This forum would also have to stick around long enough for the person in the future to receive the replies.
The Z Machine would have to interface with a PC either through USB, RS232, Printer port, network jack, whatever. If anyone is interested in building a Z Machine, I can help with the software but I know nothing about hardware. Just that the signal format needs to be published and as common as possible. The drivers are the hardest part, you might be able to write a driver for a normal Wifi card that does this, eliminating the need to build special hardware, but I don't have any experience writing drivers. I'll keep my eyes open for a one way wireless transmitter/receiver combo that talks without a handshake that you can plugin to a PC.
Darby
Epochal Historian
bogz,
I'm not sure I know what you mean by building a "Z Machine". The only Z Machine that I've ever heard of is SNL's x-ray generator that works on electrical energies on the order of 20 megamperes and plasma temperatures around 2 billion degrees.
I dunno but I don't think that you're going to build one in your basement or garage lab.
I'm not sure I know what you mean by building a "Z Machine". The only Z Machine that I've ever heard of is SNL's x-ray generator that works on electrical energies on the order of 20 megamperes and plasma temperatures around 2 billion degrees.
I dunno but I don't think that you're going to build one in your basement or garage lab.
D&D,
The zmachine is the term I am applying to an exotic device that acts similar to how Zesha describes the technique for sending messages to the past. Since day 1, I didn't buy Z's story because he said he could do bi-directional the moment I said it was required. I might be able suspend my disbelief to imagine someone in the future has acquired the knowledge on how to send RF directly to the past, but there is no way I can believe a consumer level wireless router can send messages to the future, which would be required to allow him to connect due to the "handshaking".
But the person in the future doesn't have to connect to a wireless router. They can connect to a basic device that doesn't "handshake" with the transmitter. Like a kids walky-talky, when it's on receiving audio on a particular frequency and sending it to a speaker.
So the zmachine as I am calling it in honour of Zeshua, is
- something that can receive RF signals, convert that signal to a PC readable format,
- connected to a PC with an internet connection
- uses a small script to take inbound messages and post them somewhere. See the Test section of the forum for an example.
Like SETI @ home but instead of searching for ET's you're looking for TT'ers. How exactly does the message get sent from the future to the past? I don't know, you do it on a public frequency with a public and easy to use protocol, and hope the people in the future can figure out the hard science.
The zmachine is the term I am applying to an exotic device that acts similar to how Zesha describes the technique for sending messages to the past. Since day 1, I didn't buy Z's story because he said he could do bi-directional the moment I said it was required. I might be able suspend my disbelief to imagine someone in the future has acquired the knowledge on how to send RF directly to the past, but there is no way I can believe a consumer level wireless router can send messages to the future, which would be required to allow him to connect due to the "handshaking".
But the person in the future doesn't have to connect to a wireless router. They can connect to a basic device that doesn't "handshake" with the transmitter. Like a kids walky-talky, when it's on receiving audio on a particular frequency and sending it to a speaker.
So the zmachine as I am calling it in honour of Zeshua, is
- something that can receive RF signals, convert that signal to a PC readable format,
- connected to a PC with an internet connection
- uses a small script to take inbound messages and post them somewhere. See the Test section of the forum for an example.
Like SETI @ home but instead of searching for ET's you're looking for TT'ers. How exactly does the message get sent from the future to the past? I don't know, you do it on a public frequency with a public and easy to use protocol, and hope the people in the future can figure out the hard science.
There are some problems with RF you need to get it certified so you just can't just design an RF module from scratch. Buy a module. If you design some thing in the cell phone range you will also need certification probably and it cost money. You probably want to go with something simpler in the free/test bands and use FSK (Frequency Shift Keying) in which you can make your own protocol. But you probably want two modules at different frequencies one for transmitting and one for receiving. Then all you will need is 1. Antenna 2. Radio 3. FSK chip 3. PIC 16F877 4. RS232 transceiver 5. Push button and LED's(status) 6. Voltage Regulator 7.Connectors for power, ICD and RS232 for starters. You will also have to write firmware in C for the PIC 16F877 for transferring the data. For development cost you need a PIC C compiler and an In Circuit Debugger from Microchip or somewhere else. This is a low cost solution to the problem I think where you are in control of everything.
The problem on the PC end is the RS232 port and Parallel/Printer port for security on Vista and maybe XP operating system may be locked. So you may have to write a Windows driver?
But let not get a head of our self. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
The problem on the PC end is the RS232 port and Parallel/Printer port for security on Vista and maybe XP operating system may be locked. So you may have to write a Windows driver?
But let not get a head of our self. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
This is a better solution. No hardware engineering required. You will now only have to concentrate on the PC software now. I did some research for you and found a wireless serial port attachment. Looks like plug and play.
Here the link.
Wireless Serial Port
or past in this link.
http://www.wcscnet.com/HdwHPS120.htm
Finally a member. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
That's all for now.
Here the link.
Wireless Serial Port
or past in this link.
http://www.wcscnet.com/HdwHPS120.htm
Finally a member. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
That's all for now.
That's the right idea Designer but that thing is Bluetooth. It needs to be on a public part of the spectrum that unlicensed citizens can use for recreational use (so that people in the future wouldn't be breaking any FCC rules by broadcasting on any particular frequency). Plus, Bluetooth still has a handshake. Anything with a modern protocol usually tries to establish a connection so two devices can talk without other devices on the same frequency drowning them out.
All it has to be is something _really_ basic that converts RF AM signals to digital format and sends it over RS232 or USB. We don't need high resolution, a number between 0 and 31 would work just fine (0->255 even better), 10 characters per second. You want a receiver unit that does _nothing_ but receive data over RF, and a transmitter unit just for testing purposes, that only sends RF. I would imagine they would be pretty basic circuits to design. I just don't know how.
A single bluetooth device does both sending and receiving at the same time when it negotiates a connection. The zmachine needs a receiver that does not negotiate, one that simply shows us what is being broadcast on a specific frequency.
All it has to be is something _really_ basic that converts RF AM signals to digital format and sends it over RS232 or USB. We don't need high resolution, a number between 0 and 31 would work just fine (0->255 even better), 10 characters per second. You want a receiver unit that does _nothing_ but receive data over RF, and a transmitter unit just for testing purposes, that only sends RF. I would imagine they would be pretty basic circuits to design. I just don't know how.
A single bluetooth device does both sending and receiving at the same time when it negotiates a connection. The zmachine needs a receiver that does not negotiate, one that simply shows us what is being broadcast on a specific frequency.
Ham radio or walky talky is what I mean, you just leave it on, post the lat/long of the receiver and post any messages from <reverb>the future</reverb> as they arrive. The hardware I'm talking about is simply to automate the process and save you from having to be around all the time to get the message.
What you need then is a trusted 3rd party that downloads a new random number every day and posts a dated history of these numbers. So when you see someone guessing tomorrows random number say 10 days in a row, you know it's the real deal.
As long as the receiver station, the messaging site (TTI for example) and the random number site keep running long enough, that should work? Posting the local weather conditions of where the receiver is located might be handy too.
What you need then is a trusted 3rd party that downloads a new random number every day and posts a dated history of these numbers. So when you see someone guessing tomorrows random number say 10 days in a row, you know it's the real deal.
As long as the receiver station, the messaging site (TTI for example) and the random number site keep running long enough, that should work? Posting the local weather conditions of where the receiver is located might be handy too.
ruthless
Rift Surfer
i have an idea that i wanted to run by you. what if you had a server that had a program that you made to take advantage of this: wire the 56k modem of the server up to a walkie talkie or ham radio, then wire the modem up on the pc end the same way. wouldnt this essentially be a slow wireless connection? i'd try it out if i had the software expertise, i'd finally have the internet in my barn lol.
ruthless, I would expect that HAM's could do that by now; wireless data linking. I've never looked into it though, I'm not a HAM guy. My barn is close enough to the house that I can use a 2nd wireless router to get me there (200 ft). Most wireless routers have the ability to connect to other wireless routers so it's a cheap, quick setup. The method you are talking about would have a lot more range though.