__try __except on high irql

NTDEV
21

quantum entanglement can transfer information instantaneously.across
arbitrary distance.

Mark Roddy

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 9:54 AM, xxxxx@hotmail.com <
xxxxx@lists.osr.com> wrote:

Well, it s hard to say what kind of “thinking” you are speaking about,
taking into consideration that you take certain parts of someone’s
statement while discarding the others, effectively stripping the original
statement of its actual meaning and assigning a totally different one to
it…

> Whenever someones limited imagination is the basis of a decision on what
might
> be possible, the future always proves it wrong sooner or later.

Actually, this is a pretty specious “argument” - although it seems to be
perfectly reasonable at the first glance, all you have to do is to scratch
it a bit, and,at this point, its logical fallacy becomes obvious. We are
going to see it shortly

> Please take what you wrote in that post, file it away somewhere with a
reminder
> to look at it 15 years from now and have a good laugh. API’s should
never
>be limited to one’s imagination of what is possible! There should be no
limits

Some things are just not going to change with time. For example, I can
assure you that we are NOT going to see a device that can transmit data
faster than a speed of light, so that a receiver may get a message before
the sender even starts transmitting it, effectively turning the entire
concept of causality upside down. Similarly, no matter how far the
technology advances, you are not going to consider the scenario of the same
macroscopic object occupying 2 distinct positions in space at precisely
the same moment of time (unless you happen to be schizophrenic,of course -
then only sky is the limit) .

Our example of the CPU that may dynamically reconfigure itself at the
runtime without resetting itself (at least as far a software that it
executes is concerned) firmly falls into the same class of “solutions”.

Why?

Simply because then you are going to get, at least from the software’s
perspective, a “moody CPU” that may, solely upon its own whim, give
different interpretations of exactly the same binary instruction (i.e.
before and after self-reconfiguration). How can one possibly write software
for a CPU like that???

Anton Bassov

NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

Visit the list online at: http:> showlists.cfm?list=ntdev>
>
> MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and
> software drivers!
> Details at http:
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at <
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer&gt;
></http:></http:>

22

>quantum entanglement can transfer information instantaneously.across arbitrary distance.

You seem to have overlooked the word “macroscopic” that I had even marked with underscores in my post in order to make it clear that we were not taking the quantum-level effects into consideration…

In any case, if you are so desperate to go down the the quantum level, you seem to be wrong anyway, at least as far as our current understanding of the laws of nature is concerned

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics

As you can see, quantum-level concepts don’t seem to apply to superluminal communications that, according to the current scientific consensus, is infeasible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_communication

Anton Bassov

23

Two “Quantum Entangled” particles can indeed transfer information instantaneously and thus (very much) faster than the speed of light. Just google for Professor Zeilinger in Vienna who has done a lot of interesting experiments ( e.g. https://phys.org/news/2012-09-km-physicists-quantum-teleportation-distance.html ). Prerequisite: The “Quantum Entangled” particles need to be in one and the same place first to get entangled. After that, they can instantaneously transfer information independent of the distance in between (even if located at opposite ends of the galaxy). Quantum Theory describes it. Einstein considered it “spooky”. Today it is proven by experiment. Nobody can explain it…

Quantum Entanglement works very well at a macroscopic level!
When two beams of photons are entangled and afterwards one is run onto an object (e.g. cat) and the other one onto a photographic plate, then the photo will show the object (e.g. cat), even though the actual photons going to the plate have never ever “seen” it. Just check: https://www.nature.com/news/entangled-photons-make-a-picture-from-a-paradox-1.15781

PS1: The first quoted Wikipedia statements about photon speed, phase-velocities, group-velocities and Quantum Tunelling effect are all well known. If they prove anything, then only the fact that photons (matter) cannot travel faster than the speed of light. These statements are however not related in any way to Quantum Entanglement which can transfer quantum states (information) instantaneously and thus much faster than the speed of light.

PS2: The second quoted Wikipedia link “Faster-than-light_communication” seems wrong with respect to Quantum Entanglement.

Marcel Ruedinger

datronicsoft

24

> Two “Quantum Entangled” particles can indeed transfer information

I bet that in the end of the day it is going to be me who gets the blame for the hijacked thread from “The Hanging Judge”…

Anyway, thanks for the link, Marcel - this one seems to be, indeed, interesting and easy to understand for a layman like me. It does not seem to go into esoteric details, terms and formulas that only a specialist may understand …

Anton Bassov

25

Marcel,

Actually, I had arrived to the link in question via the following one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

The link is contained in the last sentence of the following paragraph

As you can see, although it first says that “This has been shown to occur even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement:”, it makes it clear in the end that “It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds”.

Furthermore, the article in “Nature” does not seem to make any references to superluminal communication either, and does not claim that the experiment proves it possible…

Anton Bassov

26

“…It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information…”

=> That’s what even most world leading Physicists believed until very recently.
=> Meanwhile this was proven to be wrong.

The article in “Nature” indeed does not make any references to superluminal communication. However, you can easily modify the experiment for yourself to see that it will result in exactly this:
Just let the two entangled light beams go into opposite directions and let them travel for one light year each before one of them hits the photographic plate. Then short before this happens, the other one can photograph information which is instantaneously seen on the photographic plate 2 light years away.

Marcel Ruedinger

datronicsoft

27

Unfortunately, my educational level is insufficient for discussing something as complex as quantum mechanics. However, the very first question that gets into my head is “What happens if one of these photons gets into a black hole?”

According to the General Theory of Relativity, nothing that has had a misfortune of passing a black hole’s event horizon has a chance of ever escaping it. This applies not only to macroscopic objects and particles with mass but also to light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation.
Therefore, once nothing can escape it, any observer outside the event horizon has no way of ever discovering what happens behind it - if he is so curious about the whole thing his only option is to cross the event horizon and experience the black hole firsthand. Taking into consideration that
(again, according to General Theory of Relativity) he has no chance of either returning or at least communicating this experience to world outside the event horizon anyway, the whole thing is comparable to committing a suicide for the sole purpose of satisfying one’s “scientific curiosity” about the afterlife’s existence.

However, if quantum entanglement works the way you believe it does, then the whole thing seems to add basically new perspectives. In such case a photon does not really need to leave the event horizon in order to be able to “communicate the experience” - its entangled “twin” gives an outside observer a chance not only to learn about its fate but, probably, even to take the pictures of “black hole internals”…

In other words, it looks like we are turning the entire physics foundations upside down
(as well as risking to provoke “not-so-favourable” reaction from “The Hanging Judge”)…

Anton Bassov

28

“…we are turning the entire physics foundations
upside down…”

Not really…

…that’s just a glimpse into how strange Quantum Physics really is.

Besides that, it still has limited practical use (up to today) because as already mentioned above the two entangled particles need to be in one place first. E.g. in my example, someone would have to travel light years first to mount a photographic plate or mount the light source (whichever direction is preferred).

PS: Relativity and Quantum Physics are not unified (yet?). Thus don’t talk Relativity when discussing Quantum Entanglement. It could not give any results and would just confuse people.

Marcel Ruedinger

datronicsoft

29

> Why do you mention “Reference Frames” when talking about Quantum Physics?

They only apply to Relativity…

…

Thus don’t talk Relativity when discussing Quantum Entanglement. It could not give
any results and would just confuse people.

Well, both Mike and me simply showed you the absurdity of the results that one may get if he tries to apply quantum-level effects to the macroscopic world (i.e. something that you seem to be so desperate to do by suggesting the possibility of superluminal information transfer by means of quantum entanglement).

In Mike’s example, one gets a chance of getting informed about the events that have not yet occurred. In my example, one may take the pictures of what happens inside a black hole, in afterlife (if any), or in any other entity/system/etc with built-in and laws-of-the-nature-enforced mechanisms of data leak prevention and no obvious intention of offering any position (including even the one of a toilet cleaner), to Mr.Snowden.

Look - the only thing that the article in “Nature” speaks about is the possibility of taking the pictures
of photo-sensitive materials by using lower-energy radiation (i.e. infra-red or microwave), rather than the visible light. However, you have somehow extended it to suggesting the possibility of superluminal communication, effectively taking the thread to nonsensical direction
(and I bet it is going to be me and not you who gets the blame for it from “The Hanging Judge”)

Anton Bassov

30

Didn’t you read Mike’s most recent post?
He wrote: “That may be possible”.

Just for the fun (it doesn’t change any facts), you might also ask him if this counts as evidence to him: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2134843-chinese-satellite-beats-distance-record-for-quantum-entanglement/
Definitely transferring information by quantum entanglement…

PS: I thought that information transfer by quantum entanglement is already common knowledge. At least Mark seemed to know it already. Otherwise he would have probably not mentioned it…

Marcel Ruedinger

datronicsoft

31

> Didn’t you read Mike’s most recent post? He wrote: “That may be possible”.

I guess this is just a classical example of a cultural misunderstanding. Look what Mike said

This sounds (at least to me) like a typical English humourous and indirect assertion of something being very obviously impossible (like, for example, " It may be possible to see a cow flying in a birdlike fashion - please let me know when there is a confirmed observation of it.").

However, you seem to be coming from a culture that may be known for anything but indirection and sense of humour, so that you take his words literally like " Look- he agrees that cows may fly".

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2134843-chinese-satellite-beats-distance-rec ord-for-quantum-entanglement/

Well, I don’t know how the whole thing may be possibly related to this discussion. This article seems to be speaking about the quantum cryptography that has absolutely nothing to do with either quantum computing or superluminal communication. It takes advantage of the fact that it is impossible to measure the photon transparently to its entangled twin. As a result, if an eavesdropper manages to intercept the encryption key it is going to become obvious to the communicating parties, so that they are going to choose another key.

AFAIK, unlike quantum computing, quantum cryptography is a relatively mature field with commercial-grade products being available. However, it does not imply superluminal communication in any possible way. After all,I have never heard about the products being advertised like “Want to receive the emails from your deceased auntie? Want to know who wins the World Cup in the year 2178? Our new product makes it possible…(etc)”

Anton Bassov

32

Anton

Your choice of an analogy in physics was poor I think. Physics is a discipline in which it is possible to make discoveries which transform the way that we understand the ‘system’ works. An obvious example is classic physics and the discovery of relativity.

Computer science is not a discipline in which this sort of discovery can be possible because it is not in fact a science per se. There is no search for an abstraction to model the existing physical world using the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment and refine, but rather a concerted program of creating interfaces based on some extant physical reality but on a desired set of behaviours

Of course it is always possible to use discoveries in physics and other sciences to build better machines that can be used to solve problems better faster and cheaper, but there is no certainty that programs designed for the current generation of machines would run on them. When the changes fall within existing abstractions, such as a new generation of fibre optics for an HBA + SAN connection, the programs need not be modified in any way. When the changes fall into the category of breaking existing abstractions, such as a CPU based on quantum effects instead of sequential processing, those new machines don’t break the existing abstractions or transform them in any way, but augment them with new incompatible ones that need to be programmed for explicitly.

To that end, the idea that ‘eventually’ every assumption is specious. What would you do with a machine where assigning a value to a memory location causes side effects in the machine which do not include the

Ability to read the same value from that location later – oh wait lots of control registers work that way ???

Sent from Mailhttps: for Windows 10

________________________________
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com on behalf of xxxxx@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 1:15:09 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev]__try __except on high irql

> Didn’t you read Mike’s most recent post? He wrote: “That may be possible”.

I guess this is just a classical example of a cultural misunderstanding. Look what Mike said



This sounds (at least to me) like a typical English humourous and indirect assertion of something being very obviously impossible (like, for example, " It may be possible to see a cow flying in a birdlike fashion - please let me know when there is a confirmed observation of it.“).

However, you seem to be coming from a culture that may be known for anything but indirection and sense of humour, so that you take his words literally like " Look- he agrees that cows may fly”.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2134843-chinese-satellite-beats-distance-rec ord-for-quantum-entanglement/

Well, I don’t know how the whole thing may be possibly related to this discussion. This article seems to be speaking about the quantum cryptography that has absolutely nothing to do with either quantum computing or superluminal communication. It takes advantage of the fact that it is impossible to measure the photon transparently to its entangled twin. As a result, if an eavesdropper manages to intercept the encryption key it is going to become obvious to the communicating parties, so that they are going to choose another key.

AFAIK, unlike quantum computing, quantum cryptography is a relatively mature field with commercial-grade products being available. However, it does not imply superluminal communication in any possible way. After all,I have never heard about the products being advertised like “Want to receive the emails from your deceased auntie? Want to know who wins the World Cup in the year 2178? Our new product makes it possible…(etc)”

Anton Bassov

—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

Visit the list online at: http:

MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and software drivers!
Details at http:

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http:</http:></http:></http:></https:>

33

To cut a long story short: I erroneously understood that faster than light information transfer by Quantum Entanglement has very recently become common scientific knowledge proven by Zeilinger and Susskind. After revalidating details now however, this appears to be wrong indeed. Thus my statements and sample above are invalid and to be ignored.

PS: Thanks for not making any funny comments.

Marcel Ruedinger

datronicsoft

34

> Your choice of an analogy in physics was poor I think.

Agreed…

What I meant to say with this example is that some suggestions of certain “future technologies” may be so ridiculous that the very thought of their feasibility turns the entire foundations that our conventional wisdom and common sense are based upon, upside down. In this particular example, the very suggestion of a superluminal communication device turns the whole cause-effect relationship upside down (at least as far as our modern understanding of the laws of nature is concerned), and turns the whole thing into something reminiscent of the following limerick:

There was a young lady named Bright

Who used to be quicker than light

She went out one day, in a relative way

And came home the previous night

To be honest, it just did not occur to me to think that someone might challenge this assertion and seriously suggest the feasibility of superluminal communication, effectively turning this thread into, probably, the most ridiculous one in NTDEV’s entire history.

The example of a CPU that can dynamically self-reconfigure its own features without resetting itself
falls in the same class of"solutions" for the reason I had earlier explained. Certainly, if you remove “without resetting itself” part, the whole thing, once in a sudden, becomes perfectly feasible and reasonable.

For example, IIRC, Intel CPUs allow you to choose between PIC and APIC mode, as well as optionally enable or disable multicore/multithreading features, via the control registers.However,
these are “sticky” bits that can be modified only once per boot, because changing these options requires making a choice of OS software that cannot be changed without a reboot (i.e.different HALs, in case of Windows machine). Here we will have to deal with exactly the same situation - in order to be functional, the system will have to restart itself with a new set of software options
that correspond to CPU reconfiguration.

What would you do with a machine where assigning a value to a memory location
causes side effects in the machine which do not include the Ability to read the same
value from that location later

Actually, I don’t see anything particularly problematic here, especially taking into account that this is exactly how memory-mapped device registers work - you write to the memory location X
(i.e. a command register), and read from the memory location Y (i.e. a status one). Why do you think it should present any logical contradiction?

The only problematic part here may arise if these are the registers of a superluminal communication device. With such a device, the status register may indicate the result of an operation that is yet to be requested via the command one. Communicating with drivers for these devices is a daunting task as well - not only your IO completion routine may get invoked before you have submitted an IRP to it, but, to make it even worse, it may complete your IRP before you have even had a chance to allocate it…

Anton Bassov

35

So… the new community forum/mailing-list system should be in place in June.

I, personally, can’t wait.

Peter
OSR
@OSRDrivers

36

xxxxx@osr.com wrote:

So… the new community forum/mailing-list system should be in place in June.

I, personally, can’t wait.

If only you could use faster-than-light quantum entanglement to make
that happen more quickly…

–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

37

> So… the new community forum/mailing-list system should be in place in June.

I, personally, can’t wait.

Well, as I had earlier said, one does not really need any superluminal communication device in order to see who gets on the receiving end of "The Hanging Judge"s whip…

Anton Bassov

38

Marcel,

To cut a long story short: I erroneously understood… Thus my statements and
sample above are invalid and to be ignored.

You seem to be a way too pessimistic. Look what showed up on Yahoo news just a couple of hours after your most recent post

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/meet-quantum-blockchain-works-time-144820654.html

Again, they refer to Professor Zeilinger 's work. In fact, I was left just speechless by the following excerpt from one of the papers he had co-authored

The only thing I can tell you for sure that is that, even if your statements on this thread happen to be erroneous, this is definitely neither your fault or the result of your misunderstanding - as we can see it with or own eyes, Professor Zeilinger seems to be,indeed,explicitly claiming to have had found a way of influencing the past.

Therefore, all the fault (if any) lies with Professor Zeilinger, rather than with you - the only thing you did was referring to his claims…

Anton Bassov

39

Not quite

While it is clearly against all of our normal expectations to change the past, the premise that the present can be influenced by the future isn?t. Extending this premise to a mathematical abstraction which looks at a complete system of ?all time? does not necessarily mean that the past can be altered but merely that there is some kind of connection between events spaced in time.

Like most things in quantum theory, as long as you understand that it is an abstract theory which is useful for describing subatomic behaviours and which equally cannot be true in the universal sense (since it cannot account for many macroscopic observable effects) you will be just fine. And in this context, just like we use words in specific technical meanings, they are doing the same thing in papers like this.

Sent from Mailhttps: for Windows 10

________________________________
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com on behalf of xxxxx@hotmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 3:50:20 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev]__try __except on high irql

Marcel,

> To cut a long story short: I erroneously understood… Thus my statements and
>sample above are invalid and to be ignored.

You seem to be a way too pessimistic. Look what showed up on Yahoo news just a couple of hours after your most recent post

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/meet-quantum-blockchain-works-time-144820654.html

Again, they refer to Professor Zeilinger 's work. In fact, I was left just speechless by the following excerpt from one of the papers he had co-authored



The only thing I can tell you for sure that is that, even if your statements on this thread happen to be erroneous, this is definitely neither your fault or the result of your misunderstanding - as we can see it with or own eyes, Professor Zeilinger seems to be,indeed,explicitly claiming to have had found a way of influencing the past.

Therefore, all the fault (if any) lies with Professor Zeilinger, rather than with you - the only thing you did was referring to his claims…

Anton Bassov

—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

Visit the list online at: http:

MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and software drivers!
Details at http:

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http:</http:></http:></http:></https:>

40

“…useful for describing subatomic behaviours…”, “…it cannot account for any macroscopic observable effects…” (I assume “many” was a typo). Sorry, but I have to disagree again. Just as I disagreed when Anton made a similar statement.

According to my understanding of common scientific knowledge, an upper size limit for quantum effects is neither known nor expected.

It is commonly known that the double slit experiment (*) can even be done with buckyballs (large molecules - spheres which are clearly visible in an electronic microscope - very far away from subatomic). Just google for “double slit experiment and buckyballs” ( e.g. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b )

(*) Most publicly and commonly known quantum effect involving wave/particle duality.

PS: Peter, this is your house. I don’t want to offend. Please tell me to stop if you consider that it is time to stop and this is leading too far away off topic for too many consecutive posts.

Marcel Ruedinger

datronicsoft