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

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Sat Sep 5 21:01:45 UTC 2015

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 1:29 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Then that's a scheme by which FTL communication is possible: you can set
your filter's angle, and faster than that could be communicated by light
speed, your filter's angle can be detected (to very high probability) at
some distant point.  The angle being a number between 0 and 90, you give
long enough for the number to be detected and then set a new number.

> 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.

I mean that your hypothetical-but-can't-exist boxes do not model the way
photons work.

Thus, who cares about them?  You've described a fictional system that
couldn't actually exist.  People do that all the time.  Doesn't change

> (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

Irrelevant: we're discussing photons.  Particles may have many similar
properties, but if you're going to try to argue that they're kind of the
same but then use a difference that doesn't apply to photons to muddle the
argument, you're wasting time.

> > (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

Relative to the pixel density of the film, sure.  Individual photons ain't
that large.

> > 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.

No, you've pretty much ruled out that those boxes could actually be built.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150905/38603e8b/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list