Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> From: Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net>
> Subject: Re: EPR, Bell, and FTL Bandwidth (fwd)
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:53:28 -0600 (CST)

> >> Someday in the future, I open my cookie, and instantly know what
> >> Lucky will see when he opens his.
>  
> > True, but your opening your cookie does not *force* Lucky to open his
> > at the same time. This is one fault with this model. The 'state' of
> > the cookies are not inter-dependant as the polarization of the photon
> > pairs are.
>  
> While it is true that my examining my cookie does not force Lucky to
> examine his, the same can be said of a photon experiment, where the
> photons can remain in flight for an arbitrary period of time before
> being measured.

Um, actualy no. Since the photons are coupled we know that the second photon
has actualy changed it's polarization, either that or your original
assumption they are coupled is not true. The polarization between the two
photons *must* be zero. Otherwise you arent' playing with our physics.

> The state of the cookies is highly correlated, since they have
> opposite values.  The polarization of the photon pairs is similarly
> correlated, as they have equal values.

Correlation is not a function of any quantity conservation operation.
The values of the photons are actualy opposite and therefore sum to zero.
Foo is not the inverse of Bar, as is the case for horizontal and vertical
polarization.

> > It isn't instantanous, the correlation existed when they were printed
> > and doesn't change.
>  
> And indeed in the photon case, the entanglement exists when two
> photons with correlated wavefunctions are created.

True, but the swap of polarization was *not*. That occured later and is what
changes instantly irrespective of distance.

> > If I destroy one of the cookies it doesn't destroy the other
> > spontaneously as would happen in a correlated photon-pair.
>  
> Nope.  Destroying one of a pair of entangled photons does nothing to
> the other.

Yes, it causes the correlation to be destroyed. You are not taking into
account the correllation or polarization dependency between the two photons.
Our base assumption is that when photon A is horizontal then photon B is
vertical. This *must* occur to preserve symmetry.

[more stuff deleted]


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |       The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate,       |
   |       but the desire to edit somebody elses words.                 |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                  Sign in Ed Barsis' office         |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

Jim Choate writes:
 
> Um, actualy no. Since the photons are coupled we know that the second
> photon has actualy changed it's polarization, either that or your
> original assumption they are coupled is not true.
 
No.  Doing something to the first photon does not do anything to the
second, much less change its polarization.  The operators for
polarization for the two photons commute, so they are simultaneously
measureable.
 
The statistical correlation of measurements done on many pairs of
photons, with a choice of axis for measuring the polarization selected
on the fly, reflects that predicted by quantum mechanics for non-local
collapse of the overall wave function.  It is wrong to interpret this
as something done to one photon having a physical effect on the other.
 
> The polarization between the two photons *must* be zero. Otherwise you
> arent' playing with our physics.
 
Sorry, *OUR* physics explains all of this quite nicely.
 
> Correlation is not a function of any quantity conservation operation.
> The values of the photons are actualy opposite and therefore sum to
> zero. Foo is not the inverse of Bar, as is the case for horizontal and
> vertical polarization.
 
This isn't even wrong.
 
> True, but the swap of polarization was *not*. That occured later and
> is what changes instantly irrespective of distance.
 
There is no "swap of polarizations." The wavefunction of the entire
system changes quite smoothly with time, under the influence of the
usual operator.  Measurement places the system in an eigenstate for
the thing measured, and simultaneous measurements on branch systems
may show correlations consistant with non-local collapse of the
wavefunction.  None of this implies any physical effect on one photon
as a result of something done to the other.
 
> Yes, it causes the correlation to be destroyed. You are not taking
> into account the correllation or polarization dependency between the
> two photons. Our base assumption is that when photon A is horizontal
> then photon B is vertical. This *must* occur to preserve symmetry.
 
This isn't even wrong, either.

--  
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"