<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Adrian Tymes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:atymes@gmail.com" target="_blank">atymes@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Let us posit the existence of some universal observer. Let us call it God, because God knows all.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">God sees two entangled photons being formed, and knows their properties. God does not tell you, but God knows</span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Some time later, you find out the state of one of them. Does this cause a change in the other? No: it is still as God always knew it was</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">That would be equivalent to saying each photon has a lookup table telling the photon how to behave but it's encrypted and only God and the photon itself can decrypt it; </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">that's what </div> "hidden variable" <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">means,</div> something different about that particular photon that we just don't know about<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">,</div> a lookup table inside the photon that we are unable to access but the photon can when it wants to know if it should go through a filter or be stopped by one. <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> However that can not be correct because we can now devise experiments that show that photons behave in ways that no lookup table could duplicate, not even a lookup table made by God. </div></div><div>
<p class="">I have a black box, it has a red light and a blue light on it, it also has a rotary switch with 6 connections at the 12,2,4,6,8 and 10 o'clock positions. The red and blue light blink in a manner that passes all known tests for being completely random, this is true regardless of what position the rotary switch is in. Such a box could be made and still be completely deterministic by just pre-computing 6 different random sequences and recording them as a lookup table in the box. Now the box would know which light to flash.</p>
<p class="">I have another black box. When both boxes have the same setting on their rotary switch they both produce the same random sequence of light flashes. This would also be easy to reproduce in a classical physics world, just record the same 6 random sequences in both boxes. </p>
<p class="">The set of </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">two </div>boxes has another property, if the switches are set to opposite positions, 12 and 6 o'clock for example, there is a total negative correlation, when one flashes red the other box flashes blue and when one box flashes blue the other flashes red. This just makes it all the easier to make the boxes because now you only need to pre-calculate 3 random sequences, then just change every 1 to 0 and every 0 to 1 to get the other 3 sequences and record all 6 in both boxes.<p></p>
<p class="">The boxes have one more feature that makes things very interesting, if the rotary switch on a box is one notch different from the setting on the other box then the sequence of light flashes will on average be different 1 time in 4. How on Earth could I make the boxes behave like that? Well, I could change on average one entry in 4 of the 12 o'clock lookup table (hidden variable) sequence and make that the 2 o'clock table. Then change 1 in 4 of the 2 o'clock and make that the 4 o'clock, and change 1 in 4 of the 4 o'clock and make that the 6 o'clock. So now the light flashes on the box set at 2 o'clock is different from the box set at 12 o'clock on average by 1 flash in 4. The box set at 4 o'clock differs from the one set at 12 by 2 flashes in 4, and the one set at 6 differs from the one set at 12 by 3 flashes in 4.</p>
<p class="">But I said before that </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div> boxes at opposite settings should have a 100% anti-correlation, the flashes on the box set at 12 o'clock should differ from the box set <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">at </div>6 o'clock by 4 flashes in 4 NOT 3 flashes in 4. Thus if the boxes work by hidden variables then when one is set to 12 o'clock and the other to 2 there MUST be a 2/3 correlation, at 4 a 1/3 correlation, and of course at 6 no correlation at all. <p></p>
<p class="">A correlation greater </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">than</div> 2/3, such as 3/4, for adjacent settings produces paradoxes, at least it would if you expected everything to work mechanistically because of some hidden variable involved. <p></p>
<p class="">Does this mean it's impossible to make two boxes that have those specifications? Nope, but it does mean hidden variables can not be involved and that means something very weird is going on. Actually it would be quite easy to make a couple of boxes that behave like that, it's just not easy to understand how that could be. </p>
<p class="">Photons behave in just this spooky manner, so to make the boxes all you need it 4 things:</p>
<p class="">1) A glorified light bulb, something that will make two photons of unspecified but identical polarization moving in opposite directions so you can send one to each box. An excited calcium atom would do the trick, or you could turn a green photon into two identical lower energy red photons with a crystal of potassium dihydrogen phosphate.</p>
<p class="">2) A light detector sensitive enough to observe just one photon. Incidentally the human eye is not quite good enough to do that but frogs can, for frogs when light gets very weak it must stop getting dimmer and appear to flash. </p>
<p class="">3) A polarizing filter, we've had these for a century or more.</p>
<p class="">4) Some gears and pulleys so that each time the rotary switch is advanced one position the filter is advanced by 30 degrees. This is because it's been known for many years that the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2; and if x = 30 DEGREES then the value is .75 </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> Li</div>ght is made <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">of </div>photons <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">so </div>that translates to the probability any individual photon will make it through the filter is 75%.<p></p>
<p class="">The bottom line of all this is that there can not be something special about a specific photon, some internal difference, some hidden variable </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">put in there by God </div>that determines if it makes it through a filter or not. <p></p><p class=""></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> John K Clark</div><br><p></p></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div></div>