[ExI] Fwd: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> ​>​
>> A
>> ​ ​
>> Quasar
>> ​ ​
>> a billion years ago produces 2 entangled photons and sends them in
>> opposite directions. A billion years later and a billion light years from
>> its manufacturing point I spin my polarizing filter at random and it
>> happens to stop at 78 degrees. There is always a 50% chance a undetermined
>> photon will make it past a filter set at any polarization and if it does
>> then the photon is polarized at 78 degrees and so is it's distant brother
>> photon. A billion years after I made my measurement and 3 billion light
>> years away if somebody happened to place a filter set at 78 degrees
>> to intercept that other entangled photon there would be a 100% chance the
>> photon will get through.
>> ​ ​
>> If it had gone the other way (and there is a 50% chance it could have)
>> and my photon had not made it through my filter then the distant photon
>> must be oriented at 168 degrees (78 +90) and there would be a 0% chance it
>> would make it through the filter set at 78 degrees a billion years in the
>> future and 3 billion light years away.
>
> ​> ​
> So are you saying that the photons must be polarized at either 78 or 168
> degrees, because your filter is set to 78 and measures a photon before the
> other one does?
>
> ​Yes.​

​> ​
> If so, then if there existed a stream of entangled photons that the other
> site (further away) split and put through an array of filters at different
> orientations, could it not be determined, based on how often photons got
> through which ones (and thus what the odds are for each orientation), what
> your filter is set to?
>
> ​For any photon that made it through​ my filter set at 78 degrees there is
a 100% chance its brother distant photon will make it through its filter
set at 78 degrees and for any photon that is stopped my my filter there is
a 100% chance its brother photon will get through a filter set at 168 (78
+90) degrees. The weird thing is that there is nothing special about 78 I
just picked it at random, common sense would say that
​ my​
random choose made a billion years after both photons were created couldn't
have any effect on that other photon a billion years later and 3 billion
light years away
​,​
but common sense is dead wrong.

​>​
>  You have to appreciate what photons are to fully understand how this
> works, and why it does not map back to your two-clock example.


​I don't know what you mean by "​does not map", all I know it that the 2
boxes I described (and who Bell first described in 1964) COULD be built and
hidden lookup tables, even lookup tables written by God, can not duplicate
the way those boxes behave.  Bell proved with just logic and high school
algebra that if photons behave by hidden variables the correlation between
adjacent settings on the boxes MUST be 2/3 or less, and yet my boxes have a
3/4 correlation. To prove that Bell and I are wrong and my boxes "do not
map" all you have to do is prove that 2/3 is greater than 3/4. How hard can
that be?

> (Hint 1: "polarized" does not mean a photon only exists in that direction
> and has no representation in any other, including others nonorthogonal to
> that one.  Photons are vectors, not numbers, and vectors with nonzero
> lengths can always be broken down into at least two orthogonal vectors,
> where those "child" vectors are at angles greater than 0 but less than 90
> to the "parent" vector.)


Every particle has a Schrodinger Wave associated with it and that wave is
analog continuous and deterministic, but that fact is not as important as
it seems at first because the Schrodinger Wave is not measurable, it is a
sort of mathematical fiction like lines of latitude and longitude; to get
something measurable you've got to take the square of the absolute value of
the Schrodinger Wave at a point and even then it will only produce the
probability the particle will be at that point.

> (Hint 2: photons are analog


Well... sort of. In the 2 slit experiment the photon acts analog when it
goes past the slits but after that when it hits the photographic plate it
acts digitally, it doesn't make a grey smudge on the film it makes a jet
black discrete spot, it's only when you send lots of photons through the
slots do those spots start to form the interference bands that you see in
textbooks because Schrodinger says some part of the film are more likely to
be hit by photons than others.

> but those clocks are digital.


That is irrelevant, the important point is that the boxes could be built
and local hidden variables can never duplicate the way they operate.

  John K Clark




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150905/8fc5e16d/attachment.html>